/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191125.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 235 Headlines 701 DELI: Court Denies Approval of Nicolas Labor Suit Settlement ABIOMED INC: Faces Several Shareholders Class Suits AL OTRO: Court Certifies Class of Non-Mexican Asylum-Seekers ALLERGAN INC: M.P. Sues Over Harms From BIOCELL Breast Implants ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Suit in EDNY over JUUL Vape ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Producers' CCAA Petition Stays Class Suits AMTRAK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chen Suit ANDREU PALMA: Crowder Files Suit Under FDCPA in Florida ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esparza Alleges ARIZONA: Pratt, Ryan Appeal Ruling in Parsons Suit to Ninth Circuit AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending BALDWIN COUNTY EMC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Dismissal of Recherche Suit BEST BUY: Order Sustaining Objections in Elansari Suit Modified BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Bailey's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Landon Class Suit BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Still Stayed BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley CALIFORNIA COAST: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports CAPITAL ONE: Accord in Interchange Fees Suit Wins Initial Okay CAPITAL ONE: Anthony Robinson Can Amend FCRA Suit CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Suit over Cybersecurity Incident CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Class Action in EDNY CBOE GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss VIX-Related Class Suit Pending CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Denied CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Moves to Certify Class & 2 Sub-Classes CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. OK COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Recall of Dog Food Generates 37 Class Suits CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Morales Seeks Overtime Wage for Laborers CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Still Defends Infineon Merger-Related Suits DEAR FIELDBINDER: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Matke Suit DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit Underway in South Carolina DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Federal Court 10b-5 Suit DOS TOROS HOLDINGS: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Priewe Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price ELECTROLUX HOME: Reconsideration Bids Ruled on in Gorczynski Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Moves for Certification of Class ETHICON INC: Boyd Product Liability Suit Moved to W.D. Virginia EXP REALTY: Hernandez Seeks to Stop Realtors' Unsolicited Texts FACEBOOK INC: Opiotennione Sues Over Age Bias on Financial Ads FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soto FDCPA Suit FASTAFF LLC: Settlement in Dalchau FLSA Suit Gets Final Approval FEDEX CORP: Robbins Named Counsel in Consolidated Securities Suit FEDEX FREIGHT: Emetoh Seeks to Certify Settlement Class GENDLIN LIVERMAN: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes GENERAL ELECTRIC: Khelalfa Seeks to Stop Downsizing in France GLOBAL RADAR: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Sanders Suit GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Seeks Certification of 3 Classes & 1 Sub-Class GRANDVISION USA: Golan Seeks to Certify Class of Store Managers GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Files Class Certification Bid HALSTED FINANCIAL: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed HEALTH INSURANCE: Rector Seeks to Certify Class HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Underway HERSHEY CO: Class Certification Bid in Clark et al. Suit Denied HURLEY INT'L: Settlement Approval in Tincher Action Sought INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Askew Seeks to Certify Class KAIGHT INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act LABORATORY CORP: 22 Class Suits Filed over AMCA Data Breach LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics Suit Pending LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Ignacio Class Suit LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Enters Final Judgment in Morales Labor Suit MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Final Approval of $1.2MM Deal in Moodie Suit MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL INC: Runke Sues Over Debt Collection Practices MOVING RIGHT: Angerosa Seeks to Certify Two Classes MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS: Court Grants Writ of Prohibition Request NABORS INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Pending NETGEAR INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for December 5 NEW AVON LLC: Rivas Appeals Opinion and Order in Ruiz Class Suit NOCHES PAISAS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage NORTH CAROLINA: Allison Moves to Certify Class of Detainees NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Seeks to Certify TCPA Class OAPSE: Littler Seeks to Certify Public Employees Class ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Punturieri Securities Suit in D. Utah PART AUTHORITY: Did Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Henao Says PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Shelved PLURALSIGHT INC: Birmingham Pension Suit Transferred to D. Utah PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp et al. Seek to Certify Class of Consumers QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action RESOURCES ENTERPRISE: Hancock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing SAHADI FINE: Calcano Files Suit under Disabilities Act SCI DIRECT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Class SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Pending in Calif. SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Valdez Seeks to Certify Settlement Class SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed SIRIUS XM: Settlement Reached in Buchanan TCPA Class Suit SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger-Related Class Suits to be Dismissed STATE FARM: Bally Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders SWAROVSKI NORTH AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA TATE & KIRLIN: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mendel Appeals Ruling in O'Connor Class Suit UNIFIED CAPITAL: Mizel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Clairton Fire-Related Class Suit US STEEL: Motion to Certify Class of Claimants Pending VERATIP CORP: Court Denies Bid to Amend Sarikaputar FLSA Suit VIMEO INC: Acaley Civils Right Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois WAL MART: Court Takes Bid for Class Cert. under Submission WELLNX LIFE: Choo Suit Dismissed With Prejudice WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff in Coordes FDCPA Suit May Amend Complaint WEST MARINE: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Adams Suit WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal from Dismissal Order Pending WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Rehearing by the 5th Cir. En Banc Pending WILLIS TOWERS: Petition for Rehearing in Regents Suit Denied WINCO FOODS: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses XPO LOGISTICS: $16.5MM Deal in Carter FLSA Suit Has Final Approval ZENDESK INC: Faces Reidinger Class Action in N.D. Calif. ********* 701 DELI: Court Denies Approval of Nicolas Labor Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANUEL ALBERTO NICOLAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 701 DELI INC. (d/b/a 701 DELI), FOUAD HIZAM MUSAID, ABDULLAH MUSAID, and MAKI DOE, Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 7699 (ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the parties' application for approval of the Settlement Agreement. On Sept. 30, 2015, Manuel Nicolas commenced the putative action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay overtime premiums, failure to pay a wage higher than the statutory minimum, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements and notices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Nicolas subsequently submitted an application for the Court to approve the parties' Settlement Agreement. The Agreement provides for a total settlement of $50,000. Judge Ramos is satisfied that the parties have adequately justified the dollar amounts constituting the settlement. The Counsel's estimated range of recovery was about $143,000. Although the settlement is only about one-third of the maximum recovery, Nicolas' counsel indicates that conflicting evidence, the quality of the evidence and counsel, and the allocation of the burden of proof on Nicolas together suggest that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Judge Ramos agrees, especially in light of the fact that the parties were prepared to go to trial within a week of when they reported a settlement in principle to the Court. The Plaintiff's counsel's lodestar calculation is $8,745 and $1,366 in costs for a total of $10,111. This work includes drafting court documents, calculating damages, attending mediation, trial preparation, and settlement negotiations. The total amount of hours billed by all individuals is 29.95 hours. Judge Ramos is satisfied with the billing rates that the counsel assigned to each biller and the number of hours spent for each task. Based on these sums, the Judge finds that the requested attorneys' fees and costs of $16,667, one-third of the settlement, are objectively reasonable. The Agreement, however, contains a provision preventing Nicolas from opting-in to any current or future lawsuit against the Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA and requiring him to also affirmatively opt-out of any current or future lawsuit against the Defendants alleging violations of the New York Labor law. Although class action releases in the Second Circuit may include claims not presented and even those which could not have been presented, they may only do so when the released conduct arises out of the identical factual predicate as the settled conduct. The Judge will not approve an overbroad release that purports to "erase all liability whatsoever"; a proper release in a FLSA case can only "waive claims relating to the existing suit." Accordingly, Judge Ramos rules that he will not approve the Agreement as currently written. The parties may proceed in one of the following ways: 1. File a revised settlement agreement that relates any class action or other release to the factual predicate of this lawsuit, and that removes or tailors the release provisions as described in the Order; 2. File a joint letter that indicates the parties' intention to abandon settlement and continue to trial, at which point the Court will reopen the case and set down a date for a pre-trial conference; or 3. Stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice, which the Court need not approve under current Second Circuit case law. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/eHXqKa from Leagle.com. Manuel Alberto Nicolas, individually & Manuel Alberto Nicolas, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jesse S. Barton -- jbarton@faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C., Paul Hershan, Michael Faillace And Associates & Michael Antonio Faillace -- Michael@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. 701 Deli Inc., doing business as 701 Deli, Defendant, represented by Harold H. Weisberg, Harold H. Weisberg, Esq. ABIOMED INC: Faces Several Shareholders Class Suits --------------------------------------------------- Abiomed, 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 several class action suits initiated by its shareholders. On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases. However, and since October 7, 2019, two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff. The court is expected to select one of the two remaining shareholders as lead plaintiff in November or December. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its financial condition and results of operations. The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously. Abiomed said, "The Company is unable to estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal The Company is unable to estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal matters noted above. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to estimate reasonably possible loss or range of loss at this stage of the legal proceedings, including the significant number of legal and factual issues still to be resolved in the securities class action litigation." Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts. AL OTRO: Court Certifies Class of Non-Mexican Asylum-Seekers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. Kevin K. McAleenan, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Filed July 12, 2017), the Court Hon. Cynthia Bashant entered an order on Nov. 19, 2019: 1. provisionally certifying a class consisting of: "all non-Mexican asylum-seekers who were unable to make a direct asylum claim at a U.S. POE before July 16, 2019 because of the U.S. Government's metering policy, and who continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process." 2. grating Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Injunction; 3. directing Defendants to enjoin from applying the Asylum Ban to members of the provisionally certified class and directing to return to the pre-Asylum Ban practices for processing the asylum applications of members of the certified class. The Court said, "The Asylum Ban requires non-Mexican nationals who enter, attempt to enter, or arrive at a port of entry ("POE") at the southern border on or after July 16, 2019 to first seek asylum in Mexico, subject to narrow exceptions. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to prevent the Government Defendants from applying the Asylum Ban to a class of non-Mexican nationals who were prevented from making direct claims for asylum at POEs before July 16, 2019 and instructed to instead wait in Mexico pursuant to the Government's own policies and practices. The putative class members in this case did exactly what the Government told them to do: they did not make direct claims for asylum at a POE and instead returned to Mexico to wait for an opportunity to access the asylum process in the United States. Now, the Government is arguing that these class members never attempted to enter, entered, or arrived at a POE before July 16, 2019, and, therefore, the newly promulgated Asylum Ban is applicable to them. The Court disagrees. Because the Court finds that members of the putative class attempted to enter a POE or arrived at a POE before July 16, 2019, and that as such, the Asylum Ban by its terms does not apply to them, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions."[CC] ALLERGAN INC: M.P. Sues Over Harms From BIOCELL Breast Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- M.P. and S.S., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION; ALLERGAN USA, Inc., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-02858 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks relief to remedy the harms caused by the Defendants' sale of certain recalled BIOCELL breast implants. Allergan manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Allergan BIOCELL saline-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. These defective textured breast implants and tissue expanders are linked to a deadly cancer of the immune system, Breast Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"). The United States Food and Drug Administration recently requested that Allergan remove these defective implants, after determining that "use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death. In response to the FDA's request, on July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of these defective implants and tissue expanders. The Plaintiffs assert that Allergan failed to warn them of the risks related to the defective products. They also contend that despite its knowledge and admission of the defect, Allergan is refusing to pay for the majority of its affected patients' surgical costs relating to the defective implant products. Allergan is also refusing to pay, in most cases, for the medical monitoring related to the significantly increased risk of BIA-ALCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were implanted with the BIOCELL recalled product, Style 410 Natrelle Silicone-filled breast implants. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone filled breast implants and tissue expanders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. Alissa Del Riego, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com adelriego@podhurst.com ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Suit in EDNY over JUUL Vape ----------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 is facing a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, related to its alleged false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's investment in JUUL. In October 2019, Altria, Howard A. Willard III, Altria's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria's Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by a purported Altria shareholder in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The claims involve allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to Altria's investment in JUUL. Plaintiff seeks various remedies, including damages and attorneys' fees. A response to the lawsuit has not yet been filed. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand; cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal, and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 as of October 28, 2019, a total of two such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts, none of which is active. Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of October 28, 2019, a total of two such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts, none of which is active. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand; cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal, and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Producers' CCAA Petition Stays Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 class actions in Canada have been stayed as a result of three Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related to Altria or its subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well. Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). As of October 28, 2019, PM USA and Altria are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. In March 2019, all of these class actions were stayed as a result of three Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related to Altria or its subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (which is similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.). The companies entered into these proceedings following a Canadian appellate court upholding two smoking and health class action verdicts against those companies totaling approximately CAD $13 billion. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand; cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal, and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. AMTRAK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chen Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JENNY CHEN, et al., v. AMTRAK, et al, Civil Action No. 18-3617 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs Chen and Brian Jordan filed the putative class action against Defendants Amtrak and RWC, Inc. alleging claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence based on the Defendants' spraying of herbicides along Amtrak rail lines. Amtrak contracts with RWC to receive vegetation management services. These services include applying herbicides to Amtrak's rail lines within Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The contract between Amtrak and RWC includes two different "post-emergent" spray brush programs: on-track and off-track. The spray programs include the spraying of AquaNeat -- a herbicide -- along the rail lines. Pursuant to the contract, RWC provided spray treatment services along the Amtrak rail lines in Philadelphia County on at least five occasions over three years from 2015 through 2017. The Plaintiffs live on Mantua Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Theirhome and backyard border Amtrak rail lines. The Plaintiffs have an extensive garden in their backyard including herbs, fruits, and vegetables. On Aug. 16, 2017, RWC, pursuant to its contract with Amtrak, applied AquaNeat in certain adjacent areas of the right of way of Amtrak's rail lines. After RWC's spraying, the garden in the Plaintiffs' backyard began to wilt and present brown leaves. After a few days, most of the garden appeared dead. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture investigated the incident. The investigation found glyphosate -- an active ingredient in AquaNeat -- in the Plaintiffs' soil. The Department subsequently issued a notice of warning to RWC. The notice informed RWC the Department found the spraying constituted a trespass and violated 7 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 128.103(g) because it resulted in unwanted residues on the property of another. The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action, bringing claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence under Pennsylvania law. They now seek class certification and propose the class of all owners and lessees of residential properties located within 100 meters of an Amtrak rail line in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The class members would include the owners of approximately 3,454 residential properties along the Amtrak rail lines in Philadelphia County. The Court held oral argument on the Motion on April 30, 2019. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish numerosity, they have failed to meet their burden under the Rule 23(a) factors, the Court finds. The Plaintiffs have also failed to establish the class action can be maintained pursuant to either Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3), the Court adds. Accordingly, Judge Sanchez denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/WC4Mak from Leagle.com. JENNY CHEN, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER -- naxler@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH LLC, GERALD J. WILLIAMS -- gwilliams@williamscedar.com -- WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC, JOSHUA H. GRABAR -- jgrabar@grabarlaw.com -- Grabar Law Office & MARC A. GOLDICH -- mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH, LLC. BRIAN JORDAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER, AXLER GOLDICH LLC & MARC A. GOLDICH, AXLER GOLDICH, LLC. AMTRAK & RWC, INC., Defendants, represented by MARY SUSAN TOTH -- stoth@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP & VALERIE KELLNER -- vkellner@rawle.com -- RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP. ANDREU PALMA: Crowder Files Suit Under FDCPA in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC. The case is styled as Lauren Crowder, individually and on behalf of similarly situated class members, Plaintiff v. Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00820-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis PLLC is a multi-jurisdictional law firm based in South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esparza Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Esparza and Yolanda Valle, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. ANNING-JOHNSON CO, HITT CONTRACTING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03481 (D.D.C., Nov. 19, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay their employees legally mandated wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the District of Columbia's Minimum Wage Act, and the District of Columbia's Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants treated the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors, when in fact they were employees, in violation of the District of Columbia's Workplace Fraud Act, the Plaintiffs allege. They add that when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they were not paid at a rate of time and a half their regular rate for such overtime work. As the general contractor or the subcontractor that employed the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the unpaid wages of the Plaintiffs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Anning-Johnson Company is a Delaware corporation that provides specialty construction services in multiple markets across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON 777 6th Street, NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 665-9529 Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com ARIZONA: Pratt, Ryan Appeal Ruling in Parsons Suit to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Victor Antonio Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. The appellate case is captioned as Shawn Jensen, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 19-17072, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 12, 2019, District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered the parties to select from the following three options regarding the future course of case: (i) enforcement of stipulation, (ii) new settlement, and (iii) trial. In October 2014, the parties, apparently in good faith, entered into a stipulation to settle the litigation. That stipulation required the Defendants to "comply with the health care performance measures" the parties agreed upon. The stipulation did not contemplate perfect compliance with each performance measure but it did require that, as of two years after the stipulation's effective date, the Defendants would comply with every performance measure at least 85% of the time. Now, approaching the five-year anniversary of the stipulation's acceptance, the Defendants are in violation of that agreement because they are not complying with every performance measure 85% of the time. And crucially, the failing performance measures relate to the core aspects of health care delivery: provision of medication, access to specialty care, and ensuring adherence to outside providers' recommendations. Based on the Defendants' continued non-compliance with the stipulation and questions regarding the accuracy of the compliance numbers themselves, the Court appointed Dr. Marc Stern to assess the manner in which the Defendants were monitoring their compliance and to assess Defendants' "substantial noncompliance with critical aspects of health care delivery." On Oct. 2, 2019, Dr. Stern provided his report. Dr. Stern's report confirms the Court's long-held belief that pervasive issues have precluded accurate monitoring of certain performance measures and that even the low compliance levels reported in some instances may be worse. The report sets forth recommendations to ensure accurate monitoring of performance measures as well as recommendations that certain performance measures be retired and others be altered to more realistically capture whether required health care is being provided to prisoners. The report also describes in detail how the Defendants' behavior creates a significant risk of serious harm to prisoners' health and concluded that additional funding would be necessary to provide required healthcare. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on December 16, 2019; -- Appellants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan's opening brief is due on January 24, 2020; -- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn Jensen, Desiree Licci, Joshua Polson, Sonia Rodriguez, Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas, Christina Verduzco and Charlotte Wells' answering brief is due on February 24, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN JENSEN, et al., are represented by: Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq. Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq. John H. Gray, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8085 E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com agerlicher@perkinscoie.com jhgray@perkinscoie.com - and - Kathleen Erin Brody, Esq. MITCHELL STEIN CAREY CHAPMAN, PC One Renaissance Square 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 388-8958 E-mail: kathy@mscclaw.com - and - David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. Amy Fettig, Esq. Jennifer Wedekind, Esq. ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 915 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org afettig@npp-aclu.org - and - Alison Hardy, Esq. Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq. Rita Katherine Lomio, Esq. Sara Norman, Esq. Donald Specter, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: ahardy@prisonlaw.com ckendrick@prisonlaw.com rlomio@prisonlaw.com snorman@prisonlaw.com dspecter@prisonlaw.com Defendants-Appellants CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, and RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, are represented by: Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC 3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com rlove@swlfirm.com dstruck@swlfirm.com - and - Michael E. Gottfried, Esq. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 2005 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 542-7693 E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, 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's motion to dismiss in the class action suit entitled, In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned as Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.), is pending. On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers of the Company. On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and class counsel. The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019 and recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation" on July 8, 2019. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for Representatives in Brazil. On July 26, 2019 the company filed a motion to dismiss. Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome." Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America, North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BALDWIN COUNTY EMC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Dismissal of Recherche Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah Hicks Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed Baldwin Circuit Court's dismissal of the case captioned Recherche, LLC, and Brooks Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation, Case No. 1171144 (Ala.). The appeal involves the interpretation of the patronage-refund requirements imposed on electric cooperatives by Section 37-6-20, Ala. Code 1975 -- entitled "Disposition of Excess Revenues." Recherche, individually and on behalf of all other current and former members of Baldwin EMC filed a class-action complaint in the trial court, Baldwin Circuit Court, against Baldwin EMC, seeking a judgment declaring the rights of the members to a return of "Patronage Capital" or "Capital Credits," which the members assert is "excess revenues" due to be distributed to the members under Section37-6-20. Brooks Davis subsequently filed a motion to intervene to represent all former members of Baldwin EMC. Recherche and Davis asserted that Baldwin EMC's method of allocating excess revenues to capital accounts violates Section 37-6-20. The trial court dismissed the action. Recherche and Davis appealed. They argue that Section 37-6-20 requires that Baldwin EMC's distributions must be in cash or by general rate reductions or a combination of both methods. They argue that the language of Section 37-6-20 does not permit Baldwin EMC to allocate excess revenue to capital accounts and later "retire" or pay out those funds, because, they assert, allocation and retirement are not among the exclusive manners of distribution recognized in the statute, which are limited to patronage refunds, rate reductions, or a combination of both methods. Judge Stewart explains that Section 37-6-20 provides that the distribution of patronage refunds is to occur in the manner as "provided in the bylaws." Baldwin EMC's bylaws provide, among other things that Baldwin EMC is obligated to pay by credits to a capital account for each patron all such amounts in excess of operating costs and expenses. Baldwin EMC's undisputed apportionment of equity to capital accounts qualifies as distributing patronage refunds under Section 37-6-20. Although the Court is not bound by Caver v. Central Alabama Electric Cooperative, 845 F.3d 1135, 1141 (11th Cir. 2017)("Caver II"), the Judge agrees with the reasoning of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, its reliance on State v. Pea River Electric Cooperative, and State Department of Revenue v. Mon-Cre Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and its interpretation of Section 37-6-20. Because it is undisputed that Baldwin EMC is distributing excess revenues to the members' capital accounts and because Baldwin EMC's method of distribution does not contravene Section 37-6-20, Recherche and Davis' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Furthermore, because the provisions in Baldwin EMC's bylaws for the distribution of excess revenue to the members is in compliance with Section 37-6-20, Recherche and Davis' argument that Baldwin EMC has breached the contract by breaching the statutory provisions incorporated in the bylaws is not a viable claim of breach of contract. Accordingly, Judge Stewart concludes that the trial court properly dismissed Recherche and Davis' class-action complaint. Judge Stewart upholds the trial court's decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/mDIliD from Leagle.com. BEST BUY: Order Sustaining Objections in Elansari Suit Modified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMRO ELANSARI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. BEST BUY, LP; DELL, INC, Case No. 627 EDA 2019 (Pa. SUper.), Judge Deborah A. Kunselman of the U.S. Superior Court of Pennsylvania modified the order sustaining the preliminary objections of the Seller (Best Buy) and the Manufacturer (Dell) of a computer the Plaintiff purchased. According to the amended complaint, in February 2018, the Buyer was in the market for a new, powerful, desktop computer, and found a deal for such a computer for $380 -- in store only -- at Best Buy. The Buyer intended to use the new computer for streaming on Twitch.tv, a purpose he alleges was personal in nature that did not rise to the level of commercial use. The Buyer compared his purpose to Skyping regularly with people -- a very consumer-like use. Purchasing an identical computer directly from Manufacturer would have cost at least $500. So the Buyer went to the Seller's brick-and-mortar store to take advantage of the lower, in-store-only price. Thus, he claims that the Seller lured him into its store with an advertisement for the Manufacturer's computer on sale for $380. Once the Buyer entered the store, tge Seller's employee said the advertised, $380 computer was unavailable. The employee offered the Buyer another one of the Manufacturer's computers for $500 instead. He purchased the higher-priced computer. The Buyer began using the Manufacturer's computer but found it unfit for regular use as it would freeze and overheat regularly. The computer froze and overheated over 30+ times in the month of April 2018. The Buyer was stuck with the defective computer, because neither the Seller nor the Manufacturer would replace the computer or refund his purchase price, even though it came with a one-year warranty. The Buyer decided to file a small-claims action against the Defendants in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. He then discovered the Seller was still advertising the same, $380 computer in July of 2018, five months after he filed suit in the municipal court. The Buyer saved the July advertisement and went to the Seller's store with a third party. That person entered the store and asked about the $380 computer from the advertisement. Again, an employee said the $380 computer was not available and attempted to sell the third party a more expensive computer. Realizing that he was not the only potential victim of the deceptive sales tactic, the Buyer sought recourse on behalf of all similarly situated consumers. In his amended complaint, he averred that the Seller not only knew, but has been intentionally running deceptive advertisements to trick consumers into coming to its store to purchase items at a higher price, which is a very-well-established tort known as bait and switch. He alleged that the Seller knowingly and willfully misrepresented to the Buyer and the Class that its rates would be lower than standard market conditions on various occasions, particularly in-store-only as well, when, in fact, its rates are not what are advertised and in fact may be higher or non-existent at all. This deception caused him and the Class to pay substantially higher rates than those otherwise available in the market and also acquire products that were inferior in quality. The Buyer seeks damages and an injunction against the Seller from continuing to misrepresent its rates to Pennsylvania consumers. He also seeks legal fees and costs under the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). The Defendants renewed their preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to all four counts. Because the case had become a class action, the parties agreed to transfer it from the trial court's arbitration division to its commerce program. Thereafter, a commerce-program judge issued an order sustaining the second set of preliminary objections as to both the Defendants and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. The trial court ruled that Buyer purchased the computer for a business purpose, exempting the transaction from UTPCPL protection. Itt also determined that the Buyer and the Defendants never entered a contract, and that the Buyer did not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate unjust enrichment. The Buyer timely appealed, raising one issue on appeal. He asks whether Twitch streaming -- the act of broadcasting oneself over the Internet -- a trend that is common and popular among many today as a hobby, a business, and a sport -- constitutes a business, per se, to prohibit a person purchasing a single computer for Twitch streaming from asserting protection under the Consumer Protection and Bait-and-Switch Laws. In its responsive brief, the Manufacturer argues that the Court should affirm the order dismissing it with prejudice on alternative grounds. Judge Kunselman concludes that the trial court erred by granting judgment as a matter of law to the Defendants, because the amended complaint does not allege that the Buyer used the computer for business purposes. On the contrary, it undoubtedly alleges he used the good for a personal purpose. Also, the Judge's de novo review of the amended complaint and the UTPCPL reveals the Buyer alleged facts hinting at a possible basis for recovery against the Manufacturer for an unfulfilled warranty under Section 201-1(4). A second amended complaint may be appropriate. Accordingly, Judge Kunselman modified the appealed from order as follows: "And now, the 9th Day of January, 2019, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Defendants Best Buy, LP and Dell, Inc. to Plaintiff Elansari's amended complaint it is hereby ordered that preliminary objections of both Defendants are sustained as to Counts II, III, and VI. It is further ordered that preliminary objections of Dell, Inc. are sustained as to Count I of the amended complaint, and that leave is granted to Mr. Elansari to file a second amended complaint against Dell, Inc. It is further ordered that the preliminary objections of Best Buy, LP are overruled as to Count I." Judge Kunselman affirmed the order as modified. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the Memorandum. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/Cf6JSa from Leagle.com. Amro Elansari, for Appellant, Pro Se. Edward Joseph Murphy, Jr. -- emurphy@pgmurphy.com -- Murphy & Associates, for Appellee, Dell Inc. Catherine Marie Contino -- ccontino@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein, for Appellee, Best Buy Inc. BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Bailey's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the lawsuit titled JORDAN BAILEY, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01677-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The Defendants operate jointly as "Black Tie Moving." The Defendants provide moving services, including packing, loading, unloading, and storage, in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Mr. Bailey worked on Black Tie's "Local" and "Intrastate" moving team from November 2018 to March 2019. While working for Black Tie, he worked exclusively in Ohio, and he was required to wear the Black Tie Moving uniform while at work. During the time he worked for Black Tie, he says he regularly worked 50-60 hours per week, six or seven days per week, and was paid on an hourly basis. He contends he never received overtime compensation from Black Tie as Black Tie misclassified him as an independent contractor. The Plaintiff commenced this action on April 29, 2019, with the filing of a three-count Complaint against the Defendants. He filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendants on June 18, 2019, alleging violations of: 1) the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2) the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act; and 3) the Ohio Wage Laws. He seeks conditional certification of an FLSA class defined as: All former and current drivers, movers, and related positions with different titles, employed by Defendants who performed off-the-clock work, were not paid travel time, and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter ("Opt-ins," "FLSA Collective," or "Putative Collective Members"). In its Opinion & Order, the Court notes that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also proposes a class action for his state law claims. Whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that a class action is proper for his state law claims, however, is not currently before the Court. Accordingly, the Opinion and Order addresses only the FLSA collective. In its objection to the Motion, Black Tie asserts that the language "'related worker with different job title' is confusing, vague and ambiguous." The Plaintiff submits that "the proposed Notice can. . . be amended to identify 'those who performed work for Black Tie Moving, including but not limited to drivers and movers.' Alternatively, the parties can confer to come to agreeable language, should conditional certification be granted. Accordingly, Judge Sargus orders the parties to meet and confer to resolve this objection. Any objection the Defendants have to this specific portion of the new proposed notice must be submitted to the Court within 14 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order.[CC] BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District to Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern) on Oct. 31, 2019. The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01765-RDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R David Proctor. The suit alleges violation of antitrust-related laws. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, which are independent companies, have agreed with each other to carve the United States into "Service Areas" in which only one Blue can sell insurance, administer employee benefit plans or contract with healthcare providers (the "Market Allocation"). The Defendants have engaged in a horizontal market allocation, which is illegal under a per se, quick look or rule of reason analysis. The quid pro quo for this illegal Market Allocation Conspiracy is a horizontal Price-Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy under which every other Blue gets the benefit of the artificially reduced prices that each Blue pays to healthcare providers. The Blues get those benefits through the national programs that the Blues have collectively established, including the Blue Card Program and the National Accounts Programs, the lawsuit says. The Market Allocation Conspiracy reduces the competition that each Blue faces and allows it to reduce the prices that it pays to healthcare providers. The Price Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy fixes those prices for all Blues, gives them the benefit of those reduced, fixed prices and further provides that the participating Blues will collectively boycott all Providers outside of their Service Areas. In many geographic areas, the Blues have successfully created or maintained a monopsony, or have created a dangerous probability of achieving a monopsony. This conduct violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as Houston Home Dialysis LP, Plaintiff v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama; Anthem, Inc.; Health Care Service Corporation; Cambia Health Solutions Inc.; CareFirst Inc.; Premera Blue Cross; Premera Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.; USAble Mutual Insurance Company doing business as: Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Blue Cross of California doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross; California Physicians Service Inc., doing business as: Blue Shield of California; Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc. doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado; Anthem Health Plans Inc., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut; Highmark, Inc.; Highmark BCBSD, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield Delaware doing business as: Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield Delaware; Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as: CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc.; Hawaii Medical Service Association, doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawaii; Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service Inc.; Regence BlueShield of Idaho Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois; ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana; Wellmark, Inc., doing business as: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.; Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky; Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine; CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a/ CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield doing business as: CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan; BCBSM Inc., doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi; HMO Missouri, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri, doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana; Caring for Montanans, Inc. f/k/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., formerly known as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska; Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada; Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire Inc., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire; Horizon Health Care Services, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, doing business as: Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico; HealthNow New York Inc.; Blue Shield of Northeastern New York; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western New York, Inc.; Empire HealthChoice Assurance Inc.; doing business as:Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield; Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield doing business as: Excellus BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc.; Noridian Mutual Insurance Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, doing business as: Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota; Community Insurance Company, doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma; Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon; Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania d/b/a Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania doing business as: Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania; Capital Blue Cross; Highmark Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield and d/b/a Highmark Blue Shield doing business as: Highmark Blue Shield, doing business as: Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; Independence Blue Cross; Triple-S Salud, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island; BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina Inc.; Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Dakota doing business as: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Dakota; BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont; Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia, Inc., Regence BlueShield; Highmark West Virginia, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West Virginia doing business as: Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West Virginia; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming; Consortium Health Plans, Inc.; National Account Service Company, LLC; and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03791 (Filed Oct. 2, 2019). The Defendants are the Association and the Blues, their owners and affiliated companies, as well as companies through which they conduct their conspiracies. The Blues provide health insurance coverage for approximately 100 million people in the United States and, according to the BCBSA's own estimates, more than 91% of professional providers and more than 96% of hospitals in the United States contract directly with the Blues. The BCBSA exists solely for the benefit of the Blues and to facilitate their concerted activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Earnest William Wotring, Esq. CONNELLY BAKER WOTRING LLP 700 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 980-1700 Facsimile: (713) 980-6925 E-mail: ewotring@bakerwotring.com BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Landon Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations 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 a class action suit initiated by Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare. On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions. Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of the company's initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that the company misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company includes an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only" incentive to purchase; and that the company utilizes an illegal referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership interests (VOIs). Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons who, in Wisconsin, purchased from the company one or more VOIs within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Bluegreen said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Still Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations 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 stayed the class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha. On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) called plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his express written consent to do so. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint, received similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the person’s consent. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a separate action brought against a vacation ownership interests (VOI) company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley -------------------------------------------------------- Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February 8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and not-for-profit organizations in the United States and internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CALIFORNIA COAST: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Trim, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA COAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:19-cv-02198-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2019), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in reporting erroneous negative and derogatory information on the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers' credit reports, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed Chapter Seven bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Following the bankruptcy, the balance on the Debt should have been listed as $0.00 on all consumer reports and the reports should have stated the account was "closed." However, following the bankruptcy and discharge, on February 27, 2019, when checking his Experian credit report, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant reported that there remained a balance of $4,422 on the Debt. Because his account was discharged, his account should be closed and have no remaining balance, the Plaintiff contends. Experian timely notified the Defendant of the Plaintiff's dispute, but the Defendant failed to correct the information and continues to furnish false information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. The Defendant is a credit union authorized to do business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CAPITAL ONE: Accord in Interchange Fees Suit Wins Initial Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial 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 settlement of the Interchange Fees litigation has been preliminarily approved. In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks, including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of interchange fees. Other merchants have asserted similar claims in separate lawsuits, and while these separate cases did not name any issuing banks, Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One, have entered settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating the liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all interchange-related cases. The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was invalidated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June 2016, and the suit was bifurcated into separate class actions seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively. In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012 settlement and have pursued their own claims. The claims by the injunctive relief class have not been resolved, but the parties reached a new settlement agreement with the monetary damages class in August 2018, whereby the class would receive up to approximately $6.2 billion collectively from the defendants in exchange for a release of their claims, depending on the percentage of class plaintiffs who opt out. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in January 2019. Visa and MasterCard have also settled several of the opt-out cases, which required non-material payments from issuing banks, including Capital One. Visa created a litigation escrow account following its initial public offering of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for its member banks, and any settlements related to MasterCard-allocated losses have either already been paid or are reflected in the company's reserves. Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CAPITAL ONE: Anthony Robinson Can Amend FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ANTHONY T. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, NA, Defendant, Case No. 19-2275-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint; (ii) denied without prejudice as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Dismiss Class Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations; and (iii) denied without prejudice as moot the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of its Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on June 4, 2019. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Dismiss Class Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations. On Sept. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendant didn't respond. The Plaintiff sought leave to amend on Sept. 23, 2019. He filed his motion more than 21 days after the Defendant filed its Aug. 28, 2019 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. So, the Plaintiff needs the Court's leave to amend its pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). He has asked for leave to amend its complaint to supplement his allegations in order to render some of the arguments raised by Capital One moot. The Defendant didn't respond to the Plaintiff's motion. Under D. Kan. Rule 7.4, if a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within the D. Kan. Rule 6.1 (d) time requirements, the Court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion. Judge Crabtree thus considers the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave as an uncontested one. The Plaintiff argues that its proposed amended complaint is not designed to impose undue delay, that the amendments are not futile, and that the amendments will not unduly burden the Plaintiff. The Defendant filed no opposition refuting any of these arguments. Judge Crabtree thus granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint. Under D. Kan. Rule 15.1(b), the Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of the Order to file his amended complaint. Judge Crabtree denied without prejudice as moot the Defendant's (i) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Dismiss Class Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations; and (ii) Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of its Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/bPFfSC from Leagle.com. Anthony T. Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Robertson -- mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com -- Stecklein & Rapp Chartered, Michael H. Rapp, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered & Alan J. Stecklein, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered. Capital One Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Anna-Katrina S. Christakis -- kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Jeffrey D. Pilgrim -- jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP & Marielise Fraioli -- mfraioli@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP, pro hac vice. CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Suit over Cybersecurity Incident --------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial 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 has been named as a defendant in a consolidated putative consumer class action suit related to 2019 cybersecurity incident. On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on July 19, 2019, the company determined there was unauthorized access by an outside individual who obtained certain types of personal information relating to people who had applied for its credit card products and to its credit card customers (the "Cybersecurity Incident"). The Cybersecurity Incident occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019. The company believes that a highly sophisticated individual was able to exploit a specific configuration vulnerability in the company's infrastructure. The configuration vulnerability was reported to the company by an external security researcher on July 17, 2019. To date, the company have been named as a defendant in approximately 70 putative consumer class action cases (60 in U.S. federal courts and 10 in Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Cybersecurity Incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action. On October 2, 2019, the U.S. consumer class actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a multi-district litigation panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Class Action in EDNY -------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial 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 and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was filed on October 2, 2019, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions in securities filings relating to the Company's information security standards and practices. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from February 2, 2018 to June 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages, costs and other relief. Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CBOE GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss VIX-Related Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit related to the Cboe Volatility Index methodology (VIX), is pending. On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company. The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response on October 8, 2019. Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation." Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an options exchange in the United States. It operates in five segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned LORRAINE ADELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV623 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend for Certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On March 5, 2019, the District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The Court found against Plaintiff Lorraine Adell's contentions that her consent to arbitration under the FAA was not voluntary and that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") and the FAA are in conflict. Furthermore, the Court refused to find that the arbitration agreement with Verizon Wireless is unenforceable. In the present Motion, Plaintiff is asking the Court to certify for interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) the propriety of that part of its Order staying rather than dismissing the action. She contends that if the Sixth Circuit agrees that the case should have been dismissed, then her arbitrability challenges under the Constitution and CAFA can be appealed directly. The Plaintiff argues that it will prevent the parties and the Court from expending substantial resources and will eliminate the delay in resolving the arbitrability challenges she intends to take up on appeal anyway. The Defendant objects and insists that the Court properly exercised its discretion by staying rather than dismissing the lawsuit consistent with the FAA's statutory scheme and pro-arbitration policy. On review, Judge Boyko finds that all the requirements for certification are not satisfied. Whether a district court should dismiss an action or stay it after all claims have been referred to arbitration is a matter of the exercise of discretion. There is no question of "correctness" or "incorrectness" as intended by the Section 1292(b) analysis. Furthermore, the issuance of a stay comports with the longstanding pro-arbitration policy codified in the FAA and supported in federal jurisprudence, Judge Boyko notes. The Judge opines that a stay rather than an immediate appeal materially advances the ultimate termination of litigation. Accordingly, Judge Boyko concludes that the Plaintiff has not adequately shown that certification for an interlocutory appeal is warranted. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uq19fZ from Leagle.com. Lorraine Adell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, William R. Weinstein -- wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com -- & Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Law Office of Daniel R. Karon. Cellco Partnership, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Branden P. Moore -- bmoore@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, R. Eric Bilik -- ebilik@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, pro hac vice & R. Patrick Dover -- pdover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods. CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Moves to Certify Class & 2 Sub-Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BEATRICE PARKER, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees v. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-01912-HSG (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying a class and two sub-classes: -- Class: all of Defendant's current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time between February 13, 2014 and the date of the order granting class certification, inclusive, on projects at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California, the Tesoro Refinery in Martinez, California, and the Phillips 66 Refinery in Carson, California; -- Waiting Time Sub-class: all of Defendant's former hourly employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time between February 13, 2015 and the date of the order granting class certification, inclusive, on projects at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California, the Tesoro Refinery in Martinez, California, and the Phillips 66 Refinery in Carson, California, and whose employment ended during that period; and -- Wage Statement Sub-class: all of Defendant's former hourly employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time between December 18, 2016 and June 6, 2019, inclusive, who received paper wage statements that did not include the full name and address of Defendant. Ms. Parker also asks the Court to designate her and Jeffrey Gurule, Sr., as Class Representatives and Keller Grover LLP and the Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation, as Class Counsel. The complaint was filed on February 13, 2018. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on February 11, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated California's Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission by failing to pay Class members the statutory minimum wage for compensable pre-shift time, and by failing to provide Class members accurate itemized wage statements, among other violations. The Court will commence a hearing on February 13, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert W. Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLIFFORD ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CODEFIED INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00550-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. The Parties have agreed to settle the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement dated as of Sept. 13, 2019. Under the Settlement, subject to the terms and conditions therein and subject to Court approval, the Plaintiff and the other Releasing Parties will fully, finally, and forever resolve, discharge, and release the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Settlement has been filed with the Court, and the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel have filed the instant Motion. Upon considering the Motion, the Settlement and all exhibits, the record in these proceedings, the representations and recommendations of counsel, and the requirements of law, Judge Mendez granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Judge Mendez provisionally certified the following Settlement Class: All individuals or entities in the United States who, from March 28, 2015 to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, received one or more telephone calls or texts concerning Codefied's (i.e., Housecall Pro's) goods or services from or on behalf of Defendant. Judge Mendez appointed (i) Armstrong as the Class Representative; (ii) Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC as the Class Counsel; and (iii) KCC LLC as the Settlement Administrator. The Judge approved the form and content of the Mailed Notice, Long Form Notice, and Claim Form. The Administrator will implement the Notice Plan, as set forth in the Settlement, and the Claims Process using the Notices and Claim Form. The Notice will be provided to the members of the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice Plan, as specified in the Settlement and approved by the Preliminary Approval Order. A final approval hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 28, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Any person within the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement may exercise their right to opt-out of the Settlement by following the opt-out procedures set forth in the Settlement and in the Notice at any time prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. To be valid and timely, opt-out requests must be received by those listed in the Long-Form Notice on or before the Opt-Out Deadline, which is 45 days after the Notice Date, and mailed to the addresses indicated in the Notice. Any Settlement Class member may object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee Application, or the request for a service award for the Plaintiff as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Notice. Any objection to the Settlement Agreement, including any of its terms or provisions, must be in writing, filed with the Court, with a copy served on the Class Counsel, the Counsel for the Defendant, and the Settlement Administrator at the addresses set forth in the Notice, and postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline. The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, Fee Application and request for a service award for the Plaintiff, no later than Dec. 30, 2019, which is no more than 15 days prior to the Opt Out Deadline. They will file their responses to timely filed objections to the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, the Fee Application and/or request a Service Award for the Plaintiff no later than Jan. 17, 2020 which is 10 days before the Final Approval Hearing. All proceedings in the action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the Settlement. Judge Mendez has set the following schedule for the Final Approval Hearing and the actions which must take place before and after it: a. Notice Date - No more than 30 days after Preliminary Approval b. Deadline for filing papers in support of Final Approval of the Settlement and Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses - No more than 15 days prior to Opt Out Deadline c. Opt-out Deadline - 45 days after the Notice Date d. Responses to Objections - No more than 10 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing e. Final Approval Hearing - Approximately 90 days after entry of Preliminary Approval f. Claims Deadline - 60 days after the Notice Date A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/bBnpnd from Leagle.com. Clifford Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Fay Benedict -- amanda@amandabenedict.com -- Law Office of Amanda Benedict, Avi R. Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice, Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman -- reckaufman@gmail.com -- Kaufman P.A. & Stefan L. Coleman -- Lawofficesofstefancoleman@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, PA, pro hac vice. Codefied, Inc, Defendant, represented by Elyse D. Echtman -- eechtman@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice & Michael C. Weed -- mweed@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against a class action alleging ERISA violation. In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual annuity payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action has been certified as a class action. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Company is contesting this action vigorously. Colgate-Palmolive said, "Since the amount of any potential loss from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is headquartered in New York, New York. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Recall of Dog Food Generates 37 Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company and/or Hill's Pet Nutrition have been named as defendants in 37 putative class action lawsuits. During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill's Pet Nutrition announced a voluntary recall, which was subsequently expanded, of select canned dog food products due to potentially elevated levels of Vitamin D resulting from a supplier error. In the United States, the voluntary recall was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Following the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of September 30, 2019, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as defendants in 37 putative class action lawsuits and one individual action filed in various jurisdictions in the United States and one putative class action filed in Canada, all related to the voluntary recall. Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States were voluntarily dismissed. Colgate-Palmolive said, "Hill's is entitled to indemnification from the supplier related to the voluntary recall. Sales of products voluntarily recalled represent less than 2% of Hill's annual Net sales. The sales loss and other costs associated with the voluntary recall and subsequent expansion did not have a material impact on the Company's Net sales or Operating profit for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 and are not expected to have a material impact in future periods." Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Morales Seeks Overtime Wage for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIHU ROMERO MORALES, REYNALDO ARIZA BARRIOS, FERNANDO ARELLANO RAMIREZ, LUIS FLORES PEREZ, FERNANDO OLEA PRADO, and ANASTACIO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS LLC, NY DEVELOPERS & MANAGEMENT LLC, and NY DEVELOPERS & MANAGERS INC., and ELLIOTT PORCO, ALEX LIZARDO and YOEL GRUBER, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10140 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked approximately 63 hours or more per week during their employment by Defendants. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as rebar workers and general laborers, or other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for the Defendants, other than the executive and management positions, who have been subject to the Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime wages, according to the complaint. The Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. As a result of these violations of federal and New York State labor laws, 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.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-263-9591 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Still Defends Infineon Merger-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend several class action suits related to its merger with Infineon. On June 3, 2019, Cypress entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Infineon and IFX Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Infineon. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive $23.85 in cash for each share of Cypress common stock owned. The consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of Cypress. Following the public announcement of the Merger Agreement, purported stockholders of the Company filed nine lawsuits against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors: Wang v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2019; dismissed September 9, 2019); Wheby v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed July 8, 2019); Baxter v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03944 (N.D. Cal., filed July 9, 2019; dismissed October 4, 2019); Salpeter-Levy v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2019; dismissed September 13, 2019); Jeweltex Mfg. Inc. Ret. Plan v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03978 (N.D. Cal., filed July 11, 2019; dismissed October 8, 2019); Hatt v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-15400 (D.N.J., filed July 15, 2019; dismissed October 16, 2019); Starosciak v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-01315 (D. Del., filed on July 16, 2019); Fredericks v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-04139 (N.D. Cal., filed on July 18, 2019; dismissed September 18, 2019); and Nozawa v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., filed on July 23, 2019; dismissed October 3, 2019). Wheby is a purported class action. Eight of the complaints contend, among other things, that the Company's preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July 2, 2019, misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of federal securities laws (and one complaint, Fredericks, alleged similar theories based on the Company's definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July 16, 2019). Each complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction of the Merger, among other remedies. As noted above, in September and October of 2019, six of the nine complaints were voluntarily dismissed by their respective plaintiffs with prejudice (which means they cannot be refiled), except that Hatt was dismissed without prejudice and each plaintiff reserved the right to file a motion for fees. Cypress said, "Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these cases with certainty, the Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously." Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 1986, manufactures embedded system solutions for automotive, industrial, home automation and appliances, consumer electronics and medical products. The Company's segments include Microcontroller and Connectivity Division (MCD), and Memory Products Division (MPD). Its programmable systems-on-chip, general-purpose microcontrollers, analog integrated circuits (ICs), wireless and Universal Serial Bus (USB)-C based connectivity solutions and memories help engineers design differentiated products. The company is based in San Jose California. DEAR FIELDBINDER: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA ----------------------------------------------- Dear Fieldbinder, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dear Fieldbinder, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06416 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Dear Fieldbinder, Inc. is a women's store in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 280-2007 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: ds@lawsolo.net DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the Center. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the Company was prejudiced by plaintiff’s long delay in filing the amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Matke Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Matke moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled DEBORAH MATKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01665-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff says. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit Underway in South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by the City of Warren is ongoing. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Federal Court 10b-5 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties have reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which SCANA Corporation (SCANA) will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5 million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018. In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed against all or nearly all of these defendants. In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same act. In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. In October 2019, the parties reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5 million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOS TOROS HOLDINGS: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA ------------------------------------------------- Dos Toros Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dos Toros Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10534 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Dos Toros Holdings LLC, operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers Northern California style Mexican cuisine. Dos Toros Holdings provides burritos, tacos, salads, and a proprietary hot sauce Dos Toros Holdings serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Priewe Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN PRIEWE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROCORE, INC., FRANCIS R. AMATO, GLENN S. VRANIAK, BRIAN POSNER, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, JOSEPH P. ERRICO, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, THOMAS J. ERRICO, TREVOR J. MOODY, MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, and JAMES L.L. TULLIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-19653 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2019), pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that: a) purchased or otherwise acquired electroCore common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering (IPO); and/or b purchased or otherwise acquired electroCore securities between June 22, 2018, and September 25, 2019, inclusive. On June 25, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 5,980,000 shares of common stock at a price of $15.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $79.5 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to commercialize gammaCore products, expand its clinical program into additional indications in headache and rheumatology, build its specialty distribution channel for the anticipated launch of gammaCore Sapphire, and for working capital and other corporate purposes. On May 14, 2019, electroCore announced first quarter 2019 financial results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting $410,000 net sales and an operating loss of $14.2 million. On this news, electroCore's share price fell $1.58 per share, or nearly 30%, to close at $3.75 per share on May 15, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On September 25, 2019, electroCore revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission, which seeks an expanded indication for the use of gammaCore. On this news, electroCore's share price fell $0.79 per share, or over 23%, to close at $2.57 per share on September 25, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, electroCore's shares continue to trade significantly below the IPO price of $15.00 per share. As a result, investors, including the Plaintiff, were damaged. The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammacCore over existing treatments; that the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; that the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammacCore; that the lack of rermbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. ElectroCore is a bioelectronic medicine company with a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy. Its lead product gammaCore is used for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine and episodic cluster headache in adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Reconsideration Bids Ruled on in Gorczynski Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned THOMAS P. GORCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., SUPER K CORPORATION d/b/a ABC DISCOUNT APPLIANCES, MIDEA AMERICA CORP., MIDEA MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., AND ABC CORPS. 1-10, Defendants, Civil No. 18-10661(RMB/KMW) (D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, (i) granted Midea USA's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April 29 Opinion, but (ii) denied Electrolux's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff Gorczynski commenced the putative class action, alleging that Defendants Electrolux and Midea America ("Midea USA") knowingly manufactured, marketed, and sold microwaves with defective handles in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"). The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Electrolux violated the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act ("MMWA"), and breached the implied warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiff contends that the Microwaves in question, including his own, were manufactured by Midea Microwave China and distributed by Electrolux in the United States. According to the Plaintiff, Midea China became aware of the Handle Defect during testing in 2010, prior to distributing the Microwaves in the United States. He further alleges that these test results were accessible to Electrolux as early as 2010, and customers complained about the Handle Defect as early as 2013, yet Electrolux continued to sell the Microwaves throughout the United States, with over 70,000 sales in New Jersey. He contends that, despite full knowledge of the Handle Defect, Defendants have neither rectified the issue (through repair or replacement of the handle) nor warned consumers about the existence of the Handle Defect. The Plaintiff filed the initial complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, in May 2018. Electrolux removed the case to the New Jersey District Court on June 15, 2018. Following a pre-motion letter filed by Electrolux, expressing an intent to file a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on Aug. 6, 2018. On April 29, 2019, the District Court issued an Opinion, denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Now, the matter comes before the District Court upon motions for reconsideration, filed by Electrolux and Midea USA, asking the Court to reconsider its decision to deny their respective motions to dismiss. Electrolux argues that the District Court committed "manifest errors in fact and law" in finding that the Plaintiff's claims were neither subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act ("PLA") nor barred by Electrolux's attempt to reduce the statute of limitations. Meanwhile, Midea USA argues that the Court erred by conflating the "knowing omission" claims against Midea USA, with the "affirmative misrepresentation" claims against Electrolux. Judge Bumb finds that the Plaintiff's claims, based on the theory that the Handle Defect harms the Microwave itself by diminishing its value and usefulness, are not subsumed by the PLA. Judge Bumb finds that the Plaintiff need not argue that the Microwave is "broken" to state a claim for "harm to the product itself." The Plaintiff's allegation, that the Handle Defect diminishes the value and usefulness of the Microwave, could establish "harm to the product itself." Therefore, Judge Bumb will deny Electrolux's Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's finding on the issue of subsumption under the PLA. In the matter, the Plaintiff alleges that he is an ordinary consumer who purchased a Microwave without the terms of the Disclaimer ever being disclosed until box is opened after a purchase. He elaborates that the Disclaimer was not available to buyers prior to purchase, was not visible at the point of sale "because it only appears on the last page of the Use & Care Guide sealed within the Microwaves' box, and was not printed or displayed on the exterior of the boxes. It would be a "manifest error" to analogize these allegations to cases that involved sophisticated business entities or the Plaintiffs receiving warranty information before or at the time of purchase. At this stage of the litigation, Judge Bumb finds no indication that the Disclaimer language constituted an "original agreement" between the parties and the Court is not bound to apply the reasoning from Rice, which Judge Bumb believes was incorrectly decided. Finally, although the Plaintiff alleges that Midea USA is a related business entity to Midea China, the Plaintiff fails to allege any specific reason why the actions of Midea China should be imputed to Midea USA. Such pleading fails to meet the level of particularity necessary when a claim is premised on fraud or misrepresentation, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Accordingly, Judge Bumb will grant Midea USA's Motion for Reconsideration and will dismiss the Plaintiff's CFA claim against Midea USA. However, Judge Bumb will provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to clarify his allegations, to the extent feasible, through a second amended complaint. For reasons stated, Judge Bumb denied Electrolux's Motion for Reconsideration. Additionally, the Judge granted Midea USA's Motion for Reconsideration, and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's CFA claim against Midea USA. The Judge allowed the Plaintiff 21 days to file a second amended complaint, to the extent the Plaintiff can, in good faith, remedy the deficiencies outline herein. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/oVEfCD from Leagle.com. THOMAS GORCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of others similarily situated, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES JOSEPH KOCHER -- ckocher@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC, PATRICK HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. & SIMON BAHNE PARIS -- sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, represented by LOLY G. TOR -- loly.tor@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP & PATRICK J. PERRONE -- patrick.perrone@klgates.com -- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP. MIDEA AMERICA CORP., Defendant, represented by GERHARD P. DIETRICH -- gdietrich@wardgreenberg.com -- WARD GREENBERG HELLER & REIDY, LLP. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Moves for Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the case entitled KATHY MUMPOWER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ERC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00914-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.) asks the Court to certify her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Mumpower also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative, and to appoint her counsel as class counsel. The class is defined as: All persons (a) with a Florida or North Carolina address, (b) to whom Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC mailed an initial debt collection communication not returned as undeliverable, (c) on behalf of TD Bank USA, N.A., (d) in connection with the collection of a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, (e) between August 7, 2018 and August 7, 2019, (f) that included an amount to get the person's debt out of delinquency that was required to be paid within 30 days of the date of the communication. The Plaintiff contends that she and all persons in the proposed class have FDCPA claims based solely on the Defendant's conduct in sending them each the same form of initial debt collection letter--a letter that she says violates the FDCPA.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott S. Gallagher, Esq. Richard D. Rivera, Esq. Nicole Kalkines, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 50 North Laura St., Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6111 Facsimile: (904) 598-6211 E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com rrivera@sgrlaw.com nkalkines@sgrlaw.com ETHICON INC: Boyd Product Liability Suit Moved to W.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Betty Boyd and Richard Boyd, Plaintiffs v. Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-04047 (Filed Aug. 3, 2012), was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Virginia (Abingdon) on Oct. 31, 2019. The Western District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00046-JPJ-PMS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. James P. Jones. The Defendants allegedly failed to perform or rely on proper and adequate testing and research in order to determine and evaluate the risks and benefits of the pelvic mesh products inserted into the Plaintiff. The Defendants also failed to design and establish a safe, effective procedure for removal of the Medical Devices, therefore, in the event of a failure, injury or complications, it is impossible to easily and safely remove the Medical Devices. Feasible and suitable alternative designs, as well as suitable alternative procedures and instruments for implantation have existed at all times relevant as compared to the Products implanted in the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. According to its Web site, Johnson & Johnson is world's largest and most diverse medical devices and diagnostics company, with its worldwide headquarters located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ethicon, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson located in Somerville, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. LoPalo, Esq. Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 The Defendants are represented by: Christy D. Jones, Esq. Kari L. Sutherland, Esq. William M. Gage, Esq. BUTLER SNOW 1020 Highland Col Pkwy., Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 948-5711 Facsimile: (601) 985-4500 E-mail: christy.jones@butlersnow.com - and - David B. Thomas, Esq. Philip Judson Combs, Esq. Susan M. Robinson, Esq. THOMAS COMBS & SPANN P. O. Box 3824 Charleston, WV 25338-3824 Telephone: (304) 414-1800 Facsimile: (304) 414-1801 E-mail: pcombs@tcspllc.com EXP REALTY: Hernandez Seeks to Stop Realtors' Unsolicited Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington company, Case No. 2:19-cv-01882 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by directing, authorizing or ratifying its realtors' unsolicited, autodialed text messages to consumers. In the Plaintiff's case, an eXp realtor sent an autodialed text message to his cell phone number, using one of the two autodialers that the Defendant supplied to that (and every other) eXp realtor. In response to this invasion enabled by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is filing this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to cease directing its realtors to violate the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages en masse to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members. The Plaintiff is a Texas resident. eXp Realty is a realtor-owned real estate brokerage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Homsher, Esq. 510 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: (425) 320-9628 Email: Homsherf7@aol.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: Law@StefanColeman.com FACEBOOK INC: Opiotennione Sues Over Age Bias on Financial Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- NEUHTAH OPIOTENNIONE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-07185 (N.D. Cal., Oct 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of older and female Facebook users, who were denied the opportunity to receive advertising and information about financial services opportunities within Facebook's business establishment, in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ms. Opiotennione alleges that she and the proposed class members have been denied the opportunity to learn about and obtain financial services, such as mortgages, personal loans, bank accounts, insurance, investment opportunities, and financial consulting services over the past three years (or longer) due to Facebook's discriminatory advertising and business practices and its aiding and abetting of financial services companies' discriminatory advertising and business practices. Facebook encouraged its advertisers, including financial services companies, to send advertisements that excluded Facebook users from receiving the ads based on their ages or genders, the Plaintiff contends. Then, advertisers and Facebook followed this direction by routinely placing financial services advertisements on Facebook that excluded older persons and women, the lawsuit says. Due to Facebook's discriminatory practices, millions of older and female Facebook users have been denied the opportunity to receive valuable advertisements about financial services opportunities that advertisers sent to younger persons and men, and to pursue those financial services opportunities within and outside of Facebook, the Plaintiff asserts. Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. Pooja Shethyi, Esq. Adam T. Klein, Esq. Michael Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 601 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com atk@outtengolden.com prf@outtengolden.com pshethji@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com - and - William Most, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, N.# 101 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: 504 509 5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com - and - Jason R. Flanders, Esq. AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP 490 43rd Street Oakland CA 94609 777 Phone: (916) 202-3018 E-mail: jrf@atalawgroup.com - and - Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soto FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Re: Soto, v. Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-16472 (SDW) (LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss David Soto's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Prior to May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, incurred a financial obligation to WebBank. The Debt was subsequently purchased by and/or sold to LVNV Funding, LLC, and then referred to the Defendant for collection. At the time the Debt was referred to the Defendant, the Debt was past due and was in default pursuant to the terms of the agreement creating the Debt and/or by operation of law. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant sent written notice to the Plaintiff, which stated that the amount of the Debt was $772.21, and was subject to change pursuant to state or federal law. On Aug. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint in the Court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated alleging that the Defendant's letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss on Aug. 30, 2019. Judge Wigenton is satisfied that the Plaintiff's Complaint sufficiently sets forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA which prohibits the use of misleading, deceptive or false representations in the collection of debts and Section 1692f which prohibits the use of improper means to collect a debt to which the debt collector is not legally entitled. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Letter violates the FDCPA because it would lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the amount due could increase when, in fact, the Debt was in default and could not be increased. Although it remains to be seen whether the facts will ultimately support the Plaintiff's allegation (and, indeed, the parties disagree as to the state of the Debt when the letter was sent), Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to sustain his claim that the language of the Letter was misleading and/or improper under Sections 1692e and 1692f. Accordingly, Judge Wigenton denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/HRT1TU from Leagle.com. DAVID SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by BEN A. KAPLAN -- bak@cruegerdickinson.com. LAW OFFICES OF FALONI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by DAVID A. FALONI, Jr., FALONI & ASSOCIATES LLC. FASTAFF LLC: Settlement in Dalchau FLSA Suit Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned STEPHANIE DALCHAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FASTAFF, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D. Cal.). The classes covered by the Order are defined as follows: a. FLSA Collective: All individuals who, at any time within three years prior to the date of conditional certification, worked an assignment pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff, LLC, during which they received a housing stipend or in-kind housing, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the value of their housing benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime. b. Rule 23 Class: All individuals, except for those who worked exclusively on or after Nov. 16, 2017 and received in-kind housing, who, at any time from March 25, 2013 through the date of certification, worked in California pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff during which they received a housing stipend or in-kind housing, received overtime pay, and had the value of the housing benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay. Judge Orrick approved (i) the class counsel's attorneys' fees in the amount of $916,666.66 and reimbursement of the class counsel's litigation expenses in the amount of $27,753.14; (ii) the service awards to Plaintiffs Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin in the amount of $10,000 each; and (iii) the settlement administration fees and expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of $42,000, which amounts will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Class and Collective Settlement. Within 21 days after distribution of all payments owing under the Class and Collective Settlement, the Plaintiffs will file a post-distribution accounting in accordance with the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements found on the Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance). A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/mV5HmL from Leagle.com. Stephanie Dalchau, individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated & Michael Goodwin, individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Bryan Hayesmhayes@helpcounse.com, Hayes Pawlenko LLP & Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko LLP. Fastaff, LLC & U.S. Nursing Corporation, Defendants, represented by John S. Battenfeld -- jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Anne-Marie Estevez -- annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP & Shannon B. Nakabayashi -- snakabayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. FEDEX CORP: Robbins Named Counsel in Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned RHODE ISLAND LABORERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF, JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM, DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants. SELWYN KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF, JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM, DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants, Case Nos. 19-CV-5990 (RA), 19-CV-6183 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the unopposed motion of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council as administering authority to the West Yorkshire Pension Fund for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff; approval of selection of the lead counsel; and consolidation of the cases. Plaintiff Rhode Island Laborers' Pension Fund filed the Rhode Island Laborers' Pension Fund v. FedEx Corp. action on June 26, 2019 on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired FedEx common stock between Sept. 19, 2017 and Dec. 18, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. West Yorkshire seeks appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of its selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel. It alleges the largest financial interest in the action, including over $3,366,000 in losses. Judge Abrams finds that after reviewing West Yorkshire's submissions, each of the other Plaintiffs either withdrew their motions, or stated that they do not oppose West Yorkshire's appointment. West Yorkshire has also made a preliminary showing of meeting the typicality requirement of Rule 23. As no other Plaintiff has come forward with rebuttal evidence establishing that West Yorkshire will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render such Plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class, West Yorkshire will be appointed the Lead Plaintiff. The Judge also concludes that West Yorkshire's chosen counsel Robbins Geller has sufficient expertise to litigate the case and will thus be appointed the lead counsel. West Yorkshire also seeks consolidation of Rhode Island Laborers' Pension Fund v. FedEx Corp. with Selwyn Karp v. Fedex Corp. Judge Abrams finds the consolidation as appropriate. The actions assert virtually identical claims based on virtually identical factual allegations. Both complaints allege violations of the same federal securities laws based on the same set of facts. Moreover, neither the Defendants nor any other party has objected to consolidation, suggesting that consolidation will not prejudice any party. The cases will thus be consolidated to promote efficiency and judicial economy. Accordingly, Judge Abrams appointed the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council as administering authority to the West Yorkshire Pension Fund as the Lead Plaintiff and its counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as class counsel. The captioned actions are consolidated for all purposes. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/7QCp0P from Leagle.com. Selwyn Karp, 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 -- Pomerantz LLP. FedEx Corporation, Frederick W. Smith, Alan B. Graf, Jr., David J. Bronczek, Rajesh Subramaniam, David L. Cunningham, Donald F. Colleran & Michael C. Lenz, Defendants, represented by Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Andrew Robert Beatty -- andrew.beatty@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Susan Leslie Saltzstein -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. FEDEX FREIGHT: Emetoh Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as THEODORE A. EMETOH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-07272-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 14, 2020, for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a settlement class; "all persons who have worked for Defendant as non-exempt, hourly-paid Road Drivers, City Drivers, or Driver Apprentices in California at any time during the Class Period." The Class Period means from November 14, 2013 through the date of Preliminary Approval (not earlier than December 1, 2019), except that for Road Drivers, the settlement class period for all but the cell phone reimbursement claim begins on January 1, 2016; 2. preliminarily approving parties' proposed class action settlement; 3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative, his counsel as the Class Counsel, and Simpluris, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator; 4. approving forms of Class Notice and proposed timeline for administration; and 5. scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement for June 26, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available. The Defendant will pay a maximum aggregate Gross Settlement Amount of $3,250,000.00. The Gross Settlement Amount covers: -- the Class Representative payment of $7,500.00 to Plaintiff in compensation for having prosecuted the action and undertaken the risk of payment of costs in the event this matter had not been successfully concluded; -- Settlement Payment paid to Class Members for their class claims; -- PAGA Payment in the amount of $112,500.00 to be allocated to claims for civil penalties under PAGA, which includes $84,375.00 awarded to the State of California, subject to Court approval, and $28,125.00 awarded to Qualified Claimants, divided pro-rata based upon the Qualified Claimants' number of Workweeks during the PAGA Period of November 9, 2016 through the date of Preliminary Approval; -- the Class Members' respective shares of any applicable payroll taxes (including but not limited to Class Members' FICA and FUTA contributions and any other taxes) attributable to any payments under the Settlement; -- the Class Counsel Award, consisting of attorneys' fees not to exceed $1,082,250 -- 33-1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount, plus costs not to exceed $20,000 -- to compensate Class Counsel for all work performed thus far and all work remaining to be performed in connection with the Settlement, including without limitation documenting and administering the Settlement and securing Court approval; and -- the fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, not to exceed $35,000. After all Court-approved deductions from the Gross Settlement Amount, it is estimated that the Net Settlement Amount constitute an expected $2,020,875 out of the $3,250,000 Gross Settlement Amount for Class Members including related tax payments (excluding Defendant's portion of tax payments). The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay him and the Class Members for all hours worked and at the correct rate of pay; provide them with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; reimburse them for all necessary expenses; provide them with compliant wage statements; and pay their final wages on time. The Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant violated statutes subjecting them to liability under the California Unfair Competition Law; and violated the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff is a former Road Driver of Defendant. The Defendant operates a national less-than-truckload (LTL) freight service that offers pallet-level tracking and multiple-pallet shipments. Defendant provides service throughout the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico. Defendant also provides freight service to more than 130 countries and territories.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com alex@setarehlaw.com GENDLIN LIVERMAN: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY KARAS and ANDREA THUNHORST, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENDLIN LIVERMAN & RYMER S.C., ANDREW R. LIVERMAN, and TIMOTHY J. RYMER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01291-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019: 1. granting parties' stipulated motion for conditional class certification and class notice; 2. conditionally certifying Paralegal Class of: "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as a Paralegal in Wisconsin at any time since September 6, 2016"; 3. conditionally certifying Investigator Class of: "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as an Investigator in Wisconsin at any time since September 6, 2016"; 4. directing Defendants to produce separate class lists for the Paralegal Class and the Investigator Class employed at any time within three years of the date of this Order, respectively, to identify and produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel for each class the first name, last name, last known street address, city, state, zip code, phone number (if available), last four digits of social security number, and dates of employment of all persons who have been employed by Defendants and meet the above conditional class definitions; and 5. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel to send the agreed-upon and respective Notices of Right to Join Lawsuit to all individuals on each respective Class List, and that the agreed-upon and respective Notices of Right to Join Lawsuit shall be placed in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to each such respective individual on each respective Class List within five calendar days of Defendants' production of the separate class lists for the Paralegal Class and the Investigator Class. The Plaintiffs filed this class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages for investigators and paralegals employed to assist Defendants' law practice.[CC] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Khelalfa Seeks to Stop Downsizing in France ------------------------------------------------------------- Taha Khelalfa, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly Situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-10727 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to prevent a redundancy plan in France that would result in termination of at least 1,000 employees. In order to secure a very important and strategic acquisition in France, the Defendant entered into contracts, made representations and made promises that it would keep know-how and employment in France. GE even went as far as promising to increase the acquired businesses' number of employees in France, according to the complaint. In order to give these assurances to the Plaintiff, the Defendant went on French national television, spoke to the French President, entered into contracts, to make sure that its projected game changing acquisition be secured. However, it now appears now that these commitments were taken lightly by GE as it is engaged in a massive downsizing redundancy plan to secure that at least 1,000 French GE employees be terminated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks to prevent this redundancy plan in France, as it would be catastrophic for employments and strategy in France. Plaintiff Taha Khelalfa is a French national and resides in Venissieux, France. GE is engaged in various businesses, including business appliances, consumer appliances, aviation, consumer electronics, power, power project consulting services, energy management, healthcare, home, housewares, industrial solutions, intelligent platforms, and lighting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philippe Jean Joseph Pradal, Esq. PRADAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 112 West 34th, 18th Floor New York, NY 10120 Phone: (212) 502-6773 Fax: (917) 750-3106 Email: philippe.pradal@pradallaw.com GLOBAL RADAR: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Sanders Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John E. Steele grants the parties' Consent Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned SHAWANA SANDERS, on their own and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals and KENYATTA WILLIAMS, on their own and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00555-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.). The Court approves the settlement agreement as set forth in the Amended Proposed Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement, Awarding Service Awards, Expenses and Attorneys' Fees, and Final Judgment to be issued, including the release provisions incorporated therein. The Court held that the Clerk shall enter judgment, subject to the terms of the Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement, Awarding Service Awards, Expenses and Attorneys' Fees, and Final Judgment, as attached. The Clerk shall attach a copy of the Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement to the judgment, terminate all pending deadlines and motions, and close the file.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Seeks Certification of 3 Classes & 1 Sub-Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ADTRADER, INC., et al. v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), filed with the Court their corrected and redacted motion for class certification seeking 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. First, 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. Second, 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. Third, 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. Fourth, 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 GRANDVISION USA: Golan Seeks to Certify Class of Store Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE GOLAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GRANDVISION USA RETAIL HOLDING CORPORATION, FOR EYES OPTICAL CO., INC.; FOR EYES OPTICAL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and FOR EYES OPTICAL COMPANY OF COCONUT GROVE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21937-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all current and former salaried, overtime-exempt classified Store Managers (Sms) who worked for Defendants Grandvision USA Retail Holding Corporation; For Eyes Optical Co., Inc.; For Eyes Optical Co. of California, Inc.; or For Eyes Optical Company of Coconut Grove, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants" or "For Eyes") at any of their locations in the United States any time from May 14, 2016 to the present". GrandVision is a global leader in optical retailing. For Eyes Optical Company distributes and supplies optical products.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Camar Jones, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 3431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 0016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Kyle T. Berglin, Esq. Jake E. Marcus, Esq. BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L. 100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 425-1045 Facsimile: (786) 425-3905 E-mail: ServiceMIA@boydlawgroup.com kberglin@boydlawgroup.com jmarcus@boydlawgroup.com GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Files Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER DENNIS, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREATLAND HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and MONSURU HASSAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-05427 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify her FLSA overtime claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The proposed collective class is defined as: All individuals employed by Greatland Home Health Services, Inc. as home health Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, and Speech Therapists and who were paid on a "per visit" basis during a period from three years prior to the entry of the conditional certification order to the present. Ms. Dennis also asks the Court to: (1) order the Defendants to produce to her, within 10 days of its Order, a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and dates of birth for the members of the FLSA Collective Class; (2) order Court-facilitated notice of this collective action to the FLSA Collective Class in the form attached; (3) authorize her to send the Notice by first-class U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message to all members of the FLSA Collective Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit and a reminder notice 20 days before the end of the opt-in period; and (4) order the posting of the Notice at a location in Greatland's office where members of the FLSA Collective Class are likely to view it.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com HALSTED FINANCIAL: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM LINDALA, the Plaintiff, v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19‐CV‐1696 (E.D. Wisc.), the William E. Duffin entered an order on Nov. 19, 2019, granting Plaintiff's placeholder motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). On November 18, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC] HEALTH INSURANCE: Rector Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled RE: HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiff Robert Rector moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") common stock between August 4, 2017, and September 11, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the class are Defendants, directors, and officers of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. as well as their families and affiliates. 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Class Counsel, and George Gesten McDonald, PLLC as liaison counsel for the class. The case is a securities class action brought against HIIQ and its Chief Financial Officer Michael D. Hershberger for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, during the proposed class period of August 4, 2017, and September 11, 2017, inclusive. HIIQ develops and administers health insurance products (i.e. short-term medical plans) that do not provide the essential benefits (such as coverage of pre-existing conditions) required by the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The company targets "new graduates, divorcees, early retirees, military discharges, the unemployed" and other individuals who cannot afford ACA-compliant health insurance.HIIQ's distribution network includes websites and call centers that sell insurance products that are underwritten by insurance companies.[CC] Counsel for Robert Rector and Counsel for the Class are: Ramzi Abadou. Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP 912 Cole Street, # 251 San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: 504-455-1400 Facsimile: 504-455-1498 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com - and - Alexander L. Burns, Esq. Alayne K. Gobeille, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 504-455-1400 Facsimile: 504-455-1498 E-mail: alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com alayne.gobeille@ksfcounsel.com - and - David J. George, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Telephone: 561-232-6000 E-mail: dgeorge@4-Justice.com HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, 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 face the putative class action styled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc. ("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being refiled. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California. HERSHEY CO: Class Certification Bid in Clark et al. Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as HOWARD CLARK, TODD HALL, ANGELA PIRRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06113-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019: 1. granting Hershey's motion for summary judgment; and 2. denying as moot Plaintiffs' class certification. The Court will allow the Plaintiff to promptly move for another Plaintiff to intervene and to amend the complaint accordingly provided the motion is made by December 5. However, this does not mean the motion will be granted. It only means the motion will be considered, the Court says. In this food-mislabeling case, the Defendant moves for summary judgment to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims. The Hershey Company sells small ball-shaped dark chocolates with a fruit-flavored center called "Brookside Dark Chocolate." Each of the Brookside products at issue in this action are sold in packages with labels that represent the product is made with "No Artificial Flavors." These products contain malic acid, a synthetic chemical. Howard Clark purchased the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberry Flavored Product between April and July 2018. Todd Hall purchased the Brookside Dark Chocolate Pomegranate Flavored Product, the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberries Flavored Product, and the Brookside Dark Chocolate Goji & Raspberry Flavored Product from around 2014 until approximately June 2018. Angela Pirrone purchased Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberry Flavored Product and the Brookside Dark Chocolate Pomegranate Flavored Product from approximately March 2014 to August 2018. Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant's Brookside Dark Chocolate candy products violate California, New York, and federal statutes because the "No Artificial Flavors" labeling statement is false and misleading due to the presence of malic acid in the product.[CC] HURLEY INT'L: Settlement Approval in Tincher Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the case, JENA N. TINCHER, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff(s), vs. HURLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04104-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), will move the Court on January 6, 2020 for an order: 1. preliminarily approving Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims; 2. preliminarily granting class certification of the Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 3. preliminarily appointing David G. Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines of the United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; 4. preliminarily appointing herself as Class Representative; 5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures; 6. directing Notice of Class Action Settlement be mailed to the proposed Class via first class U.S. mail; and 7. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are: David G. Spivak, Esq. Stephanie Greenberg, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com stephanie@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Askew Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ALISHA ASKEW, DEBORAH WILLIAMS and, SHAVONNA ASKEW, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION (a/k/a "IHG"), LINGATE HOSPITALITY, an assumed name of GLENN ENTERPRISES, INC., LINGATE, a subsidiary of Glenn Enterprises, Inc., BURGER THEORY, an assumed name of BIG BLUE BAR, INC., and, GLENN HIGDON, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00024-JRW-LLK (W.D. Ken.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: 1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action against Defendants LinGate Hospitality, an assumed name of Glenn Enterprises, Inc. LinGate, Burger Theory, an assumed name of Big Blue Bar, Inc., and Glenn Higdon for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provisions, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. directing Defendants to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; 3. providing that notice be prominently posted at each of Defendants' restaurants in Kentucky where putative class members work, be attached to its current Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed and emailed to putative class members so each can assert their claims on a timely basis; 4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this motion is fully briefed; 5. authorizing a reminder postcard be issued mid-way through the 90-day notice period; and 6. requiring that the opt in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. InterContinental Hotels & Resorts is a hotel brand founded in 1946 as a subsidiary of Pan American World Airways. As of September 2018, there are 200 InterContinental hotels featuring over 68,000 rooms worldwide.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com - and - Lori Keen, Esq. GLASSMAN EDWARDS WADE & WYATT, PC 26 North 2nd St. Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 527-4673 E-mail: lkeen@gwtclaw.com KAIGHT INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaight Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kaight Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06415-JMA-SIL (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Kaight is an independently-owned boutique located in New York City and a pioneer retailer in the eco-fashion movement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 280-2007 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: ds@lawsolo.net LABORATORY CORP: 22 Class Suits Filed over AMCA Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 22 putative class action lawsuits over a data breach. On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA's system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided free of charge for 24 months. Twenty-two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. The lawsuits against the Company were filed in various United States District Courts. The lawsuits generally allege that the Company did not adequately protect its patients’ data, and assert various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The lawsuits seek damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company consumers. The attorneys for certain of the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) seeking to have all cases related to the AMCA Incident consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multi-district litigation. The JPML ordered the transfer of the cases to the District of New Jersey. The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit entitled,. Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al. On April 22, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 6, 2019, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and at least 40 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 28, 2019. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contains additional allegations, including allegations related to another facsimile. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Ignacio Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 class action suit entitled, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America. On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that non-exempt employees based in California were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, and meal and rest break premiums, were not indemnified for business expenses, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Enters Final Judgment in Morales Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, entered a final judgment in the case captioned EDGAR MORALES, SALVADOR MAGANA, and MATTHEW BAGU, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., a Missouri Corporation, L&P FINANCIAL SERVICES CO., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01911-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.). On Oct. 22, 2019, a hearing was held on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement; Class Representative Incentive Payments; Class Counsel's Fees and Costs; Claims Administrator's Costs; and Entering Final Judgment. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Mendez finds and determines that the proposed Class, as defined in the definitions section of the Settlement and conditionally certified by the Preliminary Approval Order, meets all of the legal requirements for class certification. Judge Mendez ordered that the Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of the Settlement. Judge Mendez further finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. Judge Mendez finally approved the Settlement. All terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and are ordered to be consummated. Because he finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be paid to the Class Members are fair and reasonable, Judge Mendez granted final approval to and ordered the payment of those amounts be made to the Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Judge Mendez gave final approval to and ordered that (i) the fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement in the amount of $10,000; (ii) the Class Representative Incentive Payments in the amount of $30,000; (iii) the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment in the amount of $583,275 for fees and $42,033.80 for costs, be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will provide written certification of such completion to the Court and counsel for the parties. The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement. Judge Mendez entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement filed on June 19, 2019, and the Order. The Order will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document constituting the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by the Court's order granting the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/fH4s5S from Leagle.com. Edgar Morales, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all other similarly situated individuals, Salvador Magana, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all other similarly situated individuals & Matthew Bagu, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph Donald Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@mallisonlaw.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Eric Sebastian Trabucco -- etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez. Leggett & Platt Incorporated, a Missouri Corporation & L&P Financial Services Co., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Carrie A. McAtee -- cmcatee@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, William C. Martucci -- wmartucci@shb.com -- Shook Hardy and Bacon, pro hac vice & Tammy Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned FRANCISCO CANTU and NORBERTO ELIZONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a/ COBRA ENERGY and HIGHER POWER ELECTRICAL, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00615-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and court-authorized notice of this action against the Defendants. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification for this Fair Labor Standards Act class: All workers employed by, or working on behalf of, Cobra and/or Higher Power who paid a day rate at any time during the last three (3) years regardless of their classification (Day Rate Workers). The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should conditionally certify this FLSA Class because they have more than satisfied their minimal burden of demonstrating that they and the Putative Class Members are similarly situated, as they were all subjected to the Defendants' uniform day rate compensation policy that deprived them of overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Final Approval of $1.2MM Deal in Moodie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class in the lawsuit entitled SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.). The Court grants final approval to the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement and directs the parties to perform their obligations pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. The Court also grants the Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Class Representative Incentive Payment and Attorney's Fees and Costs. This class is certified under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes: "All individuals who (1) were hired by Maxim between May 5, 2009 and August 27, 2012; (2) executed one of the forms collectively attached as Exhibit 'A' or a substantively identical version of those forms; and (3) were the subject of a consumer report procured by Maxim before August 27, 2012." The relief available to the class will come from a $1,200,000 non-reversionary settlement fund, after all Court-approved deductions for attorney's fees, costs, settlement administration fees, and the class representative incentive payment. Class members, who submitted a claim form will each receive $32.87. Judge Olguin rules that Plaintiff Shonntey Moodie shall be paid a service payment of $5,000 and class counsel shall be paid $300,000 in attorney's fees and costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator, JND Legal Administration, shall be paid for its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). Except as to any class members, who have validly and timely requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein and in the prior orders of the Court. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties, including class members, for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order and Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself. On May 5, 2014, Ronald Kroenig filed this class action against Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. and E-Verifile.com, Inc. asserting a single claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Following Kroenig's passing in April 2017, the Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint, was filed, replacing Kroenig with Shonntey Moodie as the named plaintiff.[CC] MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL INC: Runke Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Runke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical-Commercial Audit, Inc., d/b/a MCA Management Company/Medical-Commercial Audit Inc., a Missouri corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02957 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts. MCA operates a defaulted debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in the State of Missouri. In fact, MCA was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent Ms. Runke an initial form collection letter, dated June 21, 2019, demanding payment of defaulted consumer debts that she allegedly owed for medical services. Nowhere in the Defendant's letter did they advise Ms. Runke that disputes had to be in writing, to be effective, so that she could require MCA to provide validation of the debt. The Defendant's failure to provide informational disclosures, which are mandated by Congress in the FDCPA, constitutes a material/concrete breach of her rights under the FDCPA, and confused and misled Ms. Runke as to her rights to obtain verification of the debt under the FDCPA, and the appropriate method to invoke those rights, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Ryan M. Callahan, Esq. James R. Crump, Esq. CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC 221 East Gregory, Suite A Kansas City, MI 64114 Telephone: (816) 822-4041 Facsimile: (913) 273-1799 E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com james@callahanlawkc.com MOVING RIGHT: Angerosa Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT ANGEROSA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOVING RIGHT ALONG SERVICE, INC. and JIM RUEDA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04810 (RML) (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily approving proposed Settlement Agreement; 2. approving proposed Notice of Proposed Class and Collective Action Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, and approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement Agreement; 3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, two overlapping settlement classes -- one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and the other under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) -- with individual members jointly referred to as "Class Members," and defined as: Rule 23 Class: "all individuals who worked for Defendants as a driver and/or helper at any time between August 23, 2012 and July 31, 2019"; FLSA section 216(b) Final Collective: "all individuals who worked for Defendants as a driver and/or helper at any time between August 23, 2012 and July 31, 2019, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby opting into the settlement of all FLSA claims"; 4. appointing Robert Angerosa as the Class Representative for both Classes; 5. appointing Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel; 6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims Administrator for this settlement; and 7. approving Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing. Moving Right offers local and long-distance moving as well as crating, packing, shipping and storage services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS: Court Grants Writ of Prohibition Request --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel., MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DEREK C. SWOPE, sitting by special assignment as Judge of the Circuit Court of Wyoming County; SHERMAN TAYLOR, DAVID BAILEY, and JOANNA BAILEY, Respondents, Case No. 19-0404 (W. Va. App. Div.), Judge Tim Armstead of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted Municipal Water's writ of prohibition request. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of "a class of similarly situated individuals," filed a complaint on June 19, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County against Municipal Water. The complaint alleged that each putative class member was a customer of Municipal Water and, as a result, was exposed to illness causing pollutants in their water supply. The exposure, according to the complaint, put the class members at an increased risk of illnesses including, but not limited to, kidney and liver disease, failure and/or cancer. Further, the complaint alleges that the polluted water led a "certain subset" of the class members to develop and seek treatment for illnesses including "kidney and liver disease, failure, or cancer." The Plaintiffs defined two sub-classes in their complaint: (1) customers who suffered and were treated for adverse health effects, and (2) customers who require medical monitoring for adverse health effects. The complaint provides that the class action seeks damages, punitive damages, costs, establishment of a medical monitoring fund, attorneys' fees, and other relief as a result of Municipal Water's conduct described. On Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, asserting that the proposed class potentially consists of thousands of who were exposed to carcinogenic water provided by Defendant Municipal Water between 2016-2018, including not only those who suffer from adverse health effects, but also those who appear to be healthy but seek medical monitoring relief. The Counsel for Plaintiffs have already been retained by 26 of those affected who are seeking to file suit. Municipal Water filed a response to the motion, noting that limited discovery had occurred, and asserting that only one Plaintiff, Sherman Taylor, alleged an actual injury. Based on this argument, it urged the circuit court to deny the motion for class certification because the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. After holding a hearing, the circuit court entered an order granting class certification. The "conclusions of law" section of the circuit court's order recites the case law addressing the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a). Following entry of the circuit court's order, Municipal Water filed the instant writ on April 26, 2019, seeking to prohibit enforcement of the class certification order. On May 2, 2019, the circuit court judge, the Honorable Warren R. McGraw, advised the Court that the counsel for Municipal Water filed a motion for his disqualification. Further, the circuit court judge advised that he wishes to recuse himself voluntarily from presiding over the matter. By administrative order entered on May 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion for disqualification. Municipal Water asserts that it is entitled to a writ based on the first three State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger factors. In support of its argument, Municipal Water raises two main assignments of error: (1) the circuit court judge should have disqualified himself prior to granting the motion for class certification because he is a potential class member, and (2) the circuit court's order did not contain a "thorough analysis" explaining how the Plaintiffs satisfied the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a). Judge Armstead finds that the circuit court judge is a potential class member and could be entitled to recover financially if the class action is successful. He finds that this potential financial interest creates an appearance of impropriety. Under the Court's well-established case law, a person cannot be a judge in a cause wherein he is interested, whether he be a party to the suit or not. The circuit court judge appropriately requested that he be recused from presiding over further action in the matter. The Court granted his motion for disqualification. However, because the circuit court judge granted the class certification order prior to his disqualification, and because the certification order is the central issue in the litigation, the Judge finds that Municipal Water's writ challenging the circuit court's March 12, 2019, order certifying the class must be granted. Judge Armstead also finds that it is clear that the circuit court's order did not contain a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors -- the order's brief, general analysis of the four factors falls far short of the detailed and specific showing that is required. Instead of clearly delineating the contours of the class along with the issues, claims, and defenses to be given class treatment, the circuit court's order provides only a general, non-specific review of the Rule 23(a) requirements. Because the circuit court failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors, the order granting class certification must be vacated, Judge Armstead notes. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Armstead finds that Municipal Water is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prohibit the enforcement of the circuit court's March 12, 2019, order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The circuit court's order is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Writ granted. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/em3JcY from Leagle.com. Duane J. Ruggier, II, Esq., Evan S. Olds, Esq. -- eolds@pffwv.com -- Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner. Adam D. Taylor, Esq. -- ataylor@kaplaw.com -- Taylor & Hinkle, Attorneys at Law, Inc., Stephen P. New, Esq. , Amanda J. Taylor, Esq., The Law Office of Stephen P. New, Beckley, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondents. NABORS INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that parties in the class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, have filed appellate briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2017, the company was sued, along with Tesco Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on August 14, 2017. The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff appointment order. The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29, 2019. The parties have filed appellate briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nabors will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling related services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S. Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. NETGEAR INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for December 5 --------------------------------------------------------- NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that a motion to dismiss class suit is set for hearing on December 5, 2019. On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits. The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not presently named in the federal action. Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases. On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome of the federal case. The case will now proceed only in federal court. On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019. The motion is set for hearing on December 5, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of the federal action. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from these matters. NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996. NEW AVON LLC: Rivas Appeals Opinion and Order in Ruiz Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Maxine Rivas filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order issued on September 22, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Ruiz, et al. v. New Avon LLC, et al., Case No. 18-cv-9033, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of two former Avon employees alleging the beauty company practiced "systematic discrimination" against women "based on pregnancy, maternity and the rights of nursing mothers to pump breast milk at work." The suit takes aim at the company's branding, specifically its claims that it's a "company for women." The suit alleges, "Avon distinguishes itself from mainstream companies based on its 'passionate commitment' to empowering women" and that "because of this branding, women spend millions on Avon products." The suit goes on to allege that "because of this branding, women apply to work at Avon, believing that the company will empower them to succeed and provide women opportunities for advancement." The appellate case is captioned as Ruiz, et al. v. New Avon LLC, et al., Case No. 19-3398, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Maxine Rivas is represented by: Jeanne Christensen, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 5th Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 357-6800 E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com Defendant-Appellee New Avon LLC is represented by: Felice B. Ekelman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4005 E-mail: Felice.Ekelman@jacksonlewis.com Defendant-Appellee Avon Products, Inc., is represented by: Nicole Eichberger, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 650 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-2024 E-mail: neichberger@proskauer.com - and - Keisha-Ann Grace Gray, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3855 E-mail: kgray@proskauer.com NOCHES PAISAS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. NOCHES PAISAS CORP, dba NOCHES DE COLOMBIA, and RUBIELA OSPINA, individually, Case No. 2:19-cv-20507 (D.N.J., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks recovery against the Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law. The Defendants did not properly compensate the Plaintiff for all overtime hours he worked in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff avers he was not compensated for his overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, in connection with the Defendants' widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the FLSA and NJWHL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants full time as a non-exempt kitchen cook, performing cooking duties, from 2011 through October 19, 2017. The Defendants own and/or maintain a restaurant that provides services for persons located throughout the State of New Jersey as well as neighboring states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com NORTH CAROLINA: Allison Moves to Certify Class of Detainees ----------------------------------------------------------- The Named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LEA ALLISON, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. BRADLEY R. ALLEN, SR., in his official capacity as Chief District Court Judge, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01126 (M.D.N.C.), move for certification of and seek to represent a class, which is proposed to be defined as: All people who are arrested and charged with non-domestic violence offenses who are or will be detained in the Alamance County Detention Center because they are unable to pay monetary conditions of pretrial release. Named Plaintiffs Lea Allison, Antonio Harrell, and Katherine Guill, who are individuals being held pretrial in the Alamance County Detention Center solely because they cannot afford to pay a secured bond for their release, bring this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action alleging that the Defendants maintain bail and pretrial detention practices that violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Named Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and appoint their counsel of record as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Hubbard, Esq. Eric Halperin, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 894-6124 Facsimile: (202) 609-8030 E-mail: katherine@civilrightscorps.org eric@civilrightscorps.org - and - Irena Como, Esq. Leah J. Kang, Esq. Ann C. Webb, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 834-3466 E-mail: icomo@acluofnc.org lkang@acluofnc.org awebb@acluofnc.org - and - Twyla Carter, Esq. Brandon Buskey, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION CRIMINAL LEGAL REFORM PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 284-7364 E-mail: tcarter@aclu.org bbuskey@aclu.org NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Seeks to Certify TCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SARAH SCHMIEDER, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTHWEST COLLECTORS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05457 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: a. certifying a proposed class consisting of: "all persons with Illinois based area codes who were called by Defendant on within the last four years where Defendant played or left pre-recorded messages"; b. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel. According to the complaint, the Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to collect a purported red light ticket. The Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff's cellular telephone and played pre-recorded messages when Plaintiff answered the calls. At other times, the Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff's cellular telephone and left pre-recorded messages on her voice mail without her permission. In failing to have obtained her permission, the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA makes it unlawful for a debt collector to call another person's cellular telephone using an "automatic telephone dialing system" or "artificial or prerecorded voice" without the consent of the person being called. See, 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Accordingly, because Defendant violated the TCPA and appears willing and able to continue to violate the TCPA in relation to other Illinois residents, Plaintiff seeks to certify the class for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: 630-581-5456 Facsimile: 630-575-8188 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com OAPSE: Littler Seeks to Certify Public Employees Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Christina Littler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ohio Association of Public School Employees, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-1745-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Ms. Littler moves the Court to certify a class consisting of: "every public employee who was offered membership in OAPSE or its affiliates while working in an agency shop". According to the complaint, the Court may wish to divide this class into sub-classes.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Talcott J. Franklin, Esq. TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC 1920 McKinney Avenue 7th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 736-8730 Facsimile: (800) 727-0659 E-mail: tal@talcottfranklin.com - and - Paul W. Leithart II, Esq. Strip, Hoppers, Leithart, McGrath & Terlecky Co., LPA 575 South Third Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 545-7728 Facsimile: (614) 228-6369 E-mail: pwl@columbuslawyer.net - and - Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686 3940 Facsimile: (512) 686 3941 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law Counsel for Ohio Association of Public School Employees are: Richard F. Griffin Jr., Esq. Georgina Yeomans, Esq. BREDHOFF & KAISER P.L.L.C 805 15th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 842-2600 E-mail: rgriffin@bredhoff.com gyeomans@bredhoff.com - and - Robert J. Walter, Esq. Lane Alton Two Miranova Place, Suite 220 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-6885 E-mail: rwalter@lanealton.com ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The Company and one former and two current officers are named defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March 18, 2019. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the current and former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting related to goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a result the required adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable materially impacted the company's financial statements causing the company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the class period. Orion Group said, "The Company will respond to the complaint, considers all of these allegations without merit and will vigorously contest the allegations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Punturieri Securities Suit in D. Utah -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PUNTURIERI, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., PATRICK M. BYRNE and GREGORY J. IVERSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00850-DB (D. Utah, Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Overstock.com, Inc. between May 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019, inclusive. According to the complaint, the Defendants published a series of materially false and misleading statements which the Defendants knew and/or deliberately disregarded were false and materially misleading at the time of each statement, and which omitted to reveal material information necessary to make Defendants' statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially false and misleading. Throughout the Class Period, Overstock.com operated a Web site where individuals could buy household furniture and accessories, such as bed, bath, and kitchen products. The Company had been hemorrhaging cash quarter over quarter for years, not reporting a net quarterly profit since the fourth quarter of 2016, according to the complaint. Part of the problem was the Company's involvement in a desperate fight for market share against Wayfair.com, a direct competitor willing to lose billions of dollars to obtain significant market share in the industry. By the beginning of the Class Period, however, the Company's outlook suddenly seemed to change. First, the Company was abruptly and reporting profits on an EBITDA basis for the first time since the second quarter of 2017. Additionally, profitability was increasing so rapidly that the Company had raised year-end guidance by 50% at the start of the Class Period. Further, not only had the Company allegedly become cash flow positive, but it had done so at an important juncture--at the start of the Company's cryptocurrency project tZERO, which up to this point had reportedly cost shareholders over $100 million to get to a point where it could be introduced to the market. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants portrayed to investors that upgrades in the Company's Retail Division would bankroll the introduction of tZERO to the market and that the Company's 2019 year-end EBITDA would reach or exceed $17.5 million. During the Class Period, the Defendants delivered a number of press releases and made statements in SEC filings and during Conference Calls for analysts and investors that advanced the Company's transformation to cryptocurrency exchange service provider, and sang the praises of the advantages that this would allegedly yield to investors. The Defendants, however, failed to disclose the major risks and foreseeable volatility that was likely to come to fruition if and when the Defendants' true motives behind the tZERO Dividend Offering were ever detected, the Plaintiff contends. In fact, according to the complaint, as investors belatedly found out beginning on September 16, 2019, the Defendants had manufactured the tZERO offering as a way to get back at short sellers and tried to devise a short squeeze by offering a digital token dividend that would not be registered with regulatory authorities and could not be resold for at least six months. The lockup period established by the issuance of an unregistered security effectively culminated in short sellers being unable to deliver the security upon the surrender of their shares. Because a short seller is accountable for any dividends issued during the period when that seller has borrowed shares, the inability to obtain the locked-up digital token dividend made it unattainable for short sellers to sustain their short positions. This was a major issue because during the Class Period Overstock.com was a stock that was heavily shorted. During the period when the Defendants were carrying out this short squeeze, and as shares of Overstock.com spiked before the expected cryptocurrency dividend date, however, investment banks began to communicate to the investing public that they would accept cash instead of the cryptocurrency dividend. This alone had the effect of terminating the short squeeze, but not before shares of the Company spiked from $16 to nearly $27 per share. The Company quickly capitulated, and on September 18, 2019, Overstock announced that it would change the terms of its tZERO Dividend and register such shares with regulatory authorities in order to prevent any lockup. This also had the effect of ending the restriction against short sellers. The Defendants were motivated to and did hide the actual operational and financial condition of the Company, and materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were negatively impacting the Company throughout the Class Period, because it (i) allowed them to mislead the investing public regarding Overstock.com's business, operations, management and the actual value of Overstock.com common stock; (ii) allowed Defendants to artificially inflate the price of Overstock.com common stock; (iii) allowed Defendant Byrne to sell over $100 million of his personal Overstock.com shares while in possession of material adverse non-public information about the Company; (iv) allowed Defendants to sell additional shares of Overstock.com in the market to create a cash fund necessary to bankroll its cryptocurrency projects (while such projects were being abandoned by investment partners); and (v) caused the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Overstock.com common stock at artificially-inflated prices, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary J. Weyher, Esq. TRUE WEST LEGAL 665 S. 600 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Telephone: 801-750-5425 E-mail: zachweyher@gmil.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com PART AUTHORITY: Did Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Henao Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Davidson Henao and Miguel Mero, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. PART AUTHORITY, LLC, PARTS AUTHORITY, INC., and NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a "Diligent," Case No. 1:19-cv-10720 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of the New York Labor Law. Pursuant to their policies and practices, the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages to their Delivery Drivers, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Defendants also failed to reimburse the Delivery Drivers for the cost of driving their own vehicles to deliver Parts Authority's auto parts to its customers, which causes their net wages to fall below, or to fall further below, the New York minimum wage, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers. The Defendants own and operate a chain of 81 automobile parts sales and distribution stores in the States of New York and around the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. W. Scott Terrell III, Esq. Andrew C. White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone (914) 298-3290 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com sterrell@fbfglaw.com awhite@fbfglaw.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 984-810 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Marquel Reddish, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.741.5220 Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com mpr@kellerlenkner.com PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Petisco Brazuca LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petisco Brazuca LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06413-JMA-AKT (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Petisco Brazuca opened it first store in Bedstuy, Brooklyn, offering not only quality products but also an authentically Brazilian food experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 280-2007 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: ds@lawsolo.net PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Shelved ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREWS, the Plaintiff, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, LP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order on Nov. 18, 2019, taking following motions under submission according to Civil Minutes – General: -- Defendants' motion for reconsideration of order granting in part and denying in part motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings; and -- Plaintiff's motion to amend order certifying fisher class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) filed August 30, 2019.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Robert J Nelson, Esq. Barry Capello, Esq. Leila Noel, Esq. Matthew Preusch, Esq. Julie Farris, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415-956-1000 E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com Attorneys Defendants: Henry Weissmann, Esq. Daniel Levinv, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Telephone: (213) 683-9150 Facsimile: (213) 683-5150 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 E-mail: Henry.Weissmann@mto.com PLURALSIGHT INC: Birmingham Pension Suit Transferred to D. Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff; and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust; Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System; City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System; Pluralsight Institutional Investors Group; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority; City of Sarasota General Employees Defined Benefit Pension Plan; Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement Fund; and Sudeep Uprety, Movants v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON SKONNARD, and JAMES BUDGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07563 (Filed Aug. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Northern) on Oct 31, 2019. The District of Utah Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Romero. The case is a federal securities class action against Pluralsight and certain of its officers for violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pluralsight common stock from August 2, 2018, through July 31, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Exchange Act claims allege that certain defendants made a series of false and misleading statements and omissions, which artificially inflated the Company's stock price. The Company completed its initial public offering ("IPO") in May 2018, whereby it sold 23.8 million shares at a price of $15.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $357 million. Less than a year later, Pluralsight completed a secondary public offering ("SPO") on March 6, 2019, whereby it sold 15.6 million shares at a price of $29.25 per share, for gross proceeds of over $450 million. The SPO served as a massive cash-out for Pluralsight insiders, as all the proceeds went to Company insiders and related parties; and conversely none of the money was raised to fund corporate developments or initiatives. Pluralsight is a provider of cloud-based and video training courses for employees such as software developers, IT administrators, and creative professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-361 1 E-mail: ssinger@Wsaxenawhite.com - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. SAXENA WHITE 150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com - and - David R. Kaplan, Esq. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court of Appeals in Oregon has yet to rule on an appeal from a decision in the Trojan Investment Recovery litigation. In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest, which refunds were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014. In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision remains pending. PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and refunds discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. Portland General said, "As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp et al. Seek to Certify Class of Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DARCEY SHARP, MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. f/k/a NBTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 14, 2016), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Jan. 9, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individual consumer residents of California who purchased Defendants' Products pursuant to a BOGO price, directly from Defendants, within the applicable statutory limitations period, including the period following the filing of the date of this action." 2. appointing Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, Mary Ludolph-Aliaga, and Penelope Mueller as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Marlin & Saltzman, LLP and The Law Office of W. Hansult as lead class counsel; and 4. directing parties to meet and confer and present the Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class. Whether Plaintiffs and the proposed Class can ultimately prevail on the merits in this case depends on one common question: are Defendants' perpetual "buy something get something free" ("BOGO") offers deceptive, misleading, or unlawful? According to the complaint, the overwhelming majority of Defendants' sales of Puritan's Pride-branded vitamins, minerals, and health supplements were made through BOGO offers, answers that question with an unqualified "yes." California law similarly regulates BOGO offers, as follows: "It is unlawful to notify any person by any means that he or she will receive a gift and that as a condition of receiving the gift he or she must pay any money, if the majority of the gift offeror's sales or leases within the preceding year, through the marketing channel in which the gift is offered. . . of the type of goods or services which must be purchased or leased in order to obtain the gift item was made in conjunction with the offer of a gift. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17537(c)(4)." The Defendants have built a business model that blatantly disregards these clear directives. They sell millions of dollars' worth of Products every year in California, predominantly through the puritans.com website and mail order catalogs. The primary way that Defendants sell the Products is through BOGO promotions, such as Buy 1-Get 1/or 2 Free; and/or Buy 2-Get 3/or 4 Free, which Defendants often represent are only available for a limited time or during certain times of the year. Indeed it is, as sales under BOGO promotions represent approximately 86%-93% of total sales. Along with being unlawful, Defendants' BOGO promotions are deceptive, misleading, and unfair because consumers are not receiving anything for "free" with a purchase. Instead, Defendants build the cost of the "free" Products into the BOGO promotion price and offer BOGO promotions on substantially all of their Products with such frequency that Defendants' stated "regular price" or "single unit price" is wholly fictitious. In fact, Defendants only disclose that "you can buy single bottles of the Products outside of BOGO promotions in footers on certain pages in the catalogs and on a separate, innocuous page on their website: www.puritans.com/singles (which has a BOGO promotion at the top of the page it as of the date of this filing)."[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com - and - William Hansult, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT 1399 Ramona Avenue Grover Beach, CA 93433 Telephone: (805) 489-1448 E-mail: hansultlaw@aol.com - and - Tina Mehr, Esq. VISION LEGAL, INC. 4712 E. 2 ND Street, Suite 840 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (877) 870-9953 Facsimile: (877) 348-8509 E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. In February 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff class's final motion for summary judgment on damages awarding the class approximately $7.5 million for its meal/rest break and overtime claims and denied the motion as to penalties. Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter. In July 2019, TNS prevailed, in part, on its own motion for summary judgment on the remaining wage statement and penalty claims, with the court dismissing the claims for penalties based on alleged meal and rest break violations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. RESOURCES ENTERPRISE: Hancock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Hancock, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. RESOURCES ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company, WORK MARKET, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV358675 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for misclassifying their employees as independent contractors and failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants made unlawful deduction, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks, to issue itemizes wage statements and to reimburse for business expenses. The Plaintiff seeks penalties under the California Labor Code. The Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in for failure to provide accurate payroll records, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code, by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees their rights and benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in 2018. The Defendants are doing business throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006 Phone: (213) 381-1515 Fax: (213) 465-4885 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al. On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.; Case No RIC1804127). Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida. SAHADI FINE: Calcano Files Suit under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------ Sahadi Fine Foods Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sahadi Fine Foods Inc., Sahadi Importing Co., Inc. and Sahadi's LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06412 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Sahadi Fine Foods Inc. is a food supplies wholesaler.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 280-2007 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: ds@lawsolo.net SCI DIRECT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Nicole Romano, the Plaintiff, v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II heard the motion to certify class and motion for attorney fees on Nov. 18, 2019..[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Lonnie J Williams, Jr., Esq. Christopher P Leyel, Esq. Carl M Lewis, , Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: 602.212.8505 E-mail: lonnie.williams@stinson.com SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend two consolidated class action suits in California. In January 2017, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law, and in September 2019, in accordance with the ruling, the LA Superior Court dismissed the strict liability, negligence and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action in the Business Class Action complaint. Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in, develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides electric and gas services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Valdez Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JORGE BERMUDEZ, VIRGINIA VALDEZ, and ANGELICA PEDROZO, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 521, and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04312-VC (N.D. Cal.), Ms. Virginia Valdez will move the Court on January 9, 2020, for a order: 1. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated November 19 2019, on the grounds that its terms are sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate for notice to be issued to the class; 2. certifying the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c); 3. approving the form and content of the proposed class notice and notice plan; 4. appointing Banys, P.C. to represent the class as class counsel; 5. appointing Defendant Service Employees International Union, Local 521 as Settlement Administrator; 6. scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and an enhancement payment to Plaintiff; and 7. granting such other and further relief as may be appropriate. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant Local 521 will create a non-reversionary settlement fund of $75,000 to be distributed among the proposed class, which consists of 183 individuals. In addition, Local 521 has agreed to separately pay for Valdez's attorney fees and costs up to a maximum of $25,000, subject to this Court's approval. Importantly, any attorney fee and/or cost award will not affect the amount of the settlement fund. Nor will there be any administrative costs taken from the settlement fund, as Local 521 will handle the administration of the settlement at its own expense. Also, as non-monetary relief, Local 521 will use its best efforts to encourage its Chapters to amend their bylaws to address Valdez's concerns regarding time restrictions on union membership terminations.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Christopher D. Banys, Esq. BANYS, P.C. 567 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 996-0394 Facsimile: (650) 353-2202 E-mail: cdb@banyspc.com SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAFER PROJECT RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00183 (Sept. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Oct. 30, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-04268 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles Eskridge. Mr. Lewis brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Shafer Project Resources, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shafer employs workers, like Lewis, to carry out its work. Lewis, and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 10-12 hour shifts, 6-7 days a week. But Shafer does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant pays these workers a day-rate. Shafer is an energy services support company specializing in providing project managers, designers, inspectors, safety consultants and administrative personnel to the energy industry. Shafer operates throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William Richard Liles, Esq. Michael A Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, ESQ. 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, Tx 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: wliles@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Amber Lea Karns, Esq. 700 Milam Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-1470 E-mail: akarns@munsch.com - and - Daniel Douglas Pipitone, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 700 Milam Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-4060 Facsimile: 222-5813 E-mail: dpipitone@munsch.com SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM 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 company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, LLC in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 (referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important question of law." Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM 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 class action suit initiated by Ponderosa Twins Plus One against Pandora Media, LLC, a company subsidiary, is still stayed. In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and others filed a class action suit against Pandora alleging claims similar to those asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. This action is also currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SIRIUS XM: Settlement Reached in Buchanan TCPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM 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 a settlement has been reached in the class action suit initiated by Thomas Buchanan. On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that Sirius XM violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of the company's internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call registry. Following a mediation, in April 2019, Sirius XM entered into an agreement to settle this purported class action suit. The settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October 2013 through January 2019. As part of the settlement, Sirius XM paid $25 into a non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members, notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be paid. The settlement also contemplates that Sirius XM will provide three months of service to its All Access subscription package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The availability of this three-month service option will not diminish the $25 common fund. As part of the settlement, Sirius XM will also implement certain changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and telemarketing programs. Settlement of this matter is subject to, among other things, final approval by the Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Sirius XM 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 class action suits initiated by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan against Pandora Media, LLC, a company subsidiary, is still stayed. In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district courts for the Northern District of California and the District of New Jersey. The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights of publicity arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings. The Sheridan actions in California and New Jersey are currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger-Related Class Suits to be Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- SJW Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the complaints over a merger transaction will be dismissed now that the deal has closed. On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS. The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20, 2018, allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain material information and that SJW Group and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the CTWS board of directors. Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and other damages and attorney's fees and costs. SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. The parties to the lawsuits have agreed in principle to settle the lawsuits in exchange for the issuance of additional disclosures by CTWS. Pursuant to the agreements to settle the lawsuits, the plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek a mootness fee from CTWS. The parties moved to stay proceedings, other than fee-related proceedings, until such time as the transaction closes, and the court granted the parties' motion to stay on November 14, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opening brief in support of their fee application. The stay of proceedings expired on February 28, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay was to continue until May 29, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay be continued until September 11, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay be continued until November 11, 2019. Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle the litigation, the complaints will be dismissed now that the merger transaction closed on October 9, 2019. SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility services in the United States. It engages in the production, purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and retail sale of water. SJW Group was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. STATE FARM: Bally Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH A. BALLY, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04954-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 27, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying a class defined as: "all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of California whose policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002 and who was subject to at least one monthly deduction"; and 2. designating Elizabeth Bally as the class representative and the law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Miller Schirger, LLC; and Girard Sharp LLP as class counsel. The Plaintiff challenges State Farm Life Insurance Company's interpretation and implementation of its form universal life insurance policy. The case is well-suited for class certification, the Plaintiff contends, because it turns on the interpretation of a form contract under California law, and State Farm's uniform conduct toward all class members. In fact, a nearly identical case brought on behalf of a class of Missouri policy owners was certified and tried to jury verdict just last year. See Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 16-4170-CV-C-NKL (W.D. Mo.).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415 981-4800 Facsimile: 415-981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com aornelas@girardsharp.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 Facsimile: 816-714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MI 64111 Telephone: 816 561-6500 Facsimile: 816 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com SWAROVSKI NORTH AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Swarovski North America Limited is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swarovski North America Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10536 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019). Swarovski North America Ltd provides crystal and fashion jewelry. The Company's line of business includes manufacturing costume jewelry. Swarovski North America operates worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com TATE & KIRLIN: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Zarczynksi moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. and AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01663-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff asserts. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Michele Metcalf for herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TransPerfect Global, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01653 (Aug. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Oct 31, 2019. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10104-AJN to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan. The case is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all of Defendant's Client Services Associates and Senior Client Services Executives, who worked in the Defendant's New York City offices from December 31, 2018, to the present. The suit Seeks $75,000 in damages. The Plaintiff and the other Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week--often working 50-55 hours or more each week. Unless an exemption applies, pursuant to 12 N.Y.C.R.R. section 142-2, New York employers are required to pay their employees one-and-one half times their regular hourly rate of pay for each hour worked over 40, according to the complaint. Even though no exemption applied, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other Class Members one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40, in violation of the New York Labor Law. TransPerfect Translations is a translation services company based in New York City. The company provides "foreign words" primarily to companies in the legal and healthcare fields. As of 2012, TransPerfect was "the largest privately owned language services provider, with offices in over 90 cities worldwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nona Yegazarian, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH AND KHAN LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: nona@bnsklaw.com - and - Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3284 Facsimile: (914) 908-6722 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - and - Nathan M Smith, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH AND KHAN LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michelle Chung, Esq. Eric S. Beane, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US North Tower 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: michelle.chung@dlapiper.com eric.beane@dlapiper.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mendel Appeals Ruling in O'Connor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Movant S. Patrick Mendel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 14, 2019, District Court Judge Edward M. Chen granted the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, and (i) Motion for Attorneys' Fees. The Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits against Defendant Uber, alleging that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees. Five years of contentious litigation ensued. The parties eventually entered into an agreement to settle both suits, and on March 29, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval to the parties' class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement covers all Drivers in California and Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since Aug. 16, 2009, up to and including Feb. 28, 2019, and who have validly opted out of arbitration or for whom Uber has no record of acceptance of an arbitration agreement. In exchange for the Class Members' release of their claims, the Settlement provides monetary and non-monetary consideration. The monetary component of the Settlement is a $20 million non-reversionary fund. From the fund, $5 million will be deducted for attorneys' fees, approximately $311,092 will be awarded for attorneys' out-of-pocket expenses related to the litigation, $300,000 will be awarded for costs of claims administration, and $40,000 will be ordered as incentive awards for the Settlement Class representatives. The appellate case is captioned as Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-17073, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on December 11, 2019; -- Appellant S. Patrick Mendel's opening brief is due on January 21, 2020; -- Appellees Thomas Colopy, Elie Gurfinkel, Matthew Manahan, Douglas O'Connor and Uber Technologies, Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 21, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Movant-Appellant S. PATRICK MENDEL of San Leandro, California, appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, MATTHEW MANAHAN and ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew David Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Samuel Eckman, Esq. Theane Evangelis, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (484) 354-8170 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com seckman@gibsondunn.com tevangelis@gibsondunn.com - and - Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8383 E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com - and - Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 E-mail: KRingDowell@gibsondunn.com UNIFIED CAPITAL: Mizel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Mizel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and STEVEN MIZEL and PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP F/B/O STEVEN MIZEL ROTH IRA, Derivatively on Behalf of Consolidated Asset Funding 3 LP v. UNIFIED CAPITAL PARTNERS 3 LLC, and UNIFIED ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, and CONSOLIDATED ASSET FUNDING 3 LP, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10712 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties. There is a Limited Partnership Agreement between UPC, the General Partner on the one hand, and the Limited Partners, including the Plaintiffs, on the other hand. Section 10.1 of the LP Agreement provides that the Partnership shall dissolve on the third anniversary of the date of the Final Subsequent Closing (October 1, 2013) with 2 permissible consecutive 1 year extensions if the General Partner (UPC) determines that such extension is necessary or advisable for the orderly liquidation of the Partnership's Assets. Under the LP Agreement, the dissolution date is no later than October 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs demanded that the UPC as General Partner dissolve the Partnership and liquidate and distribute the Partnership's assets. UPC as General Partner refused the Plaintiffs' demand and failed to dissolve the Partnership or to liquidate the Partnership's assets. The Plaintiffs contend that there is no provision in the LP Agreement for further extensions of the term of the Partnership beyond October 1, 2018. This decline is due to the wrongful conduct of the Defendants and further demonstrates the inadvisability of the General Partner's failure to dissolve and liquidate Consolidated at the end of the Limited Partnership's term as provided in Section 10.1 of the LP Agreement, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants reform and correct the financial statements issued, to correctly state that the Preferred Return to the Limited Partners is 15% per annum. The Defendants have refused to reform and correct the financial statements of Consolidated either by themselves or by giving instructions to the public accountancy firm to do so, says the complaint. Plaintiff Steven Mizel is a resident of the State of California. Steven Mizel is the beneficial owner of the Steven Mizel Roth IRA. Unified Capital Partners 3 LLC is the General Partner of Consolidated and is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0380 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Clairton Fire-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton are engaged in discovery. On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton. The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the result of U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S. Steel's operations subsequent to the fire. An initial Court status conference was held on June 27, 2019 and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. U. S. Steel is vigorously defending the matter. United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled (Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. US STEEL: Motion to Certify Class of Claimants Pending ------------------------------------------------------ United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs have moved to certify the class of claimants which is being challenged by the remaining Defendants. On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions. Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the Delaware Court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material information regarding the financial condition of the Company. The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27, 2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock dropped. The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against the same officers and also allege that certain current and former members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case. Plaintiffs have moved to certify the class of claimants which is being challenged by the remaining Defendants. The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending the remaining claims. United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled (Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. VERATIP CORP: Court Denies Bid to Amend Sarikaputar FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint captioned Paranee Sarikaputar et al., Plaintiffs, v. Veratip Corp. et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00814 (ALC) (SDA) (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against Veratip, J. Akira LLC, ThaiNY Restaurant LLC, Ninety-Nine Plus Corp., Perapong Chotimanenophan, Shue-Lee Cheng Li, Chardenpong Oonapanyo, 9999 Midtown Corp. and Michael P. Bronstein, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New York General Business Law. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Feb. 2, 2017. J. Akira and Mr. Bronstein filed their Answer to the Complaint on Sept. 7, 2017. No other Defendants have appeared in the case. On Oct. 25, 2017, a mediation was held that was unsuccessful. On Dec. 12, 2017, the case was referred to Judge Aaron for general pretrial purposes. An initial conference was held with the parties on Jan. 29, 2018, after which the Judge entered an order setting a June 29, 2018 discovery deadline. By Order dated July 10, 2018, the discovery deadline was extended by the Court until Oct. 31, 2018. On July 25, 2018, District Judge Carter granted Mr. Bronstein leave to file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judge Carter denied Mr. Bronstein's motion on March 22, 2019, and denied his motion for reconsideration on June 3, 2019. Following the motion practice, on July 2, 2019, a new Case Management Plan was entered requiring discovery to be completed by Sept. 30, 2019. In that Plan, the Plaintiffs did not indicate that they desired to amend the Complaint. By letter dated Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs for the first time sought leave to amend the Complaint. On Aug. 20, 2019, following a telephone conference with the parties, Judge Arron entered an Order providing in relevant part as follows: If the Plaintiffs believe they have a good faith basis to move to amend their complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, as requested in their letter dated Aug. 19, 2019, they will file the motion no later than Aug. 26, 2019. On Aug. 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs purported to file an Amended Complaint, which was rejected by the Clerk of Court since leave to file the document had not been granted. On Sept. 23, 2019, Judge Aaron entered a Text Only Order stating that the operative pleading in this case remains the Complaint. The next day, on Sept. 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend that is currently before the District Court. In their motion, the Plaintiffs -- without explanation for their delay -- seek to add additional Plaintiffs, as well as additional Defendants. The Defendants opposed the motion. Judge Aaron holds that the Plaintiffs have unduly delayed in seeking to amend their pleading in the case. The discovery period is now closed. Allowing them to add additional Plaintiffs and Defendants, two and one-half years after the filing of the original complaint would cause the Defendants prejudice by requiring them to expend additional resources and, in addition, would significantly delay the resolution of the proceedings. Mr. Bronstein should be permitted to obtain resolution of the claims against him now. If the amendment were granted, there would be extensive delays in service of the amending pleading and in reopening discovery. On the other hand, the Judge opines that there is no prejudice to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs who seek to be added to the amending pleading already have filed consents to seek redress in this case for violations of the FLSA. In addition, the Plaintiffs may file a plenary action against the new Defendants that they had sought to add. Accordingly, Judge Aaron denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/x4jcBJ from Leagle.com. Paranee Sarikaputar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Phouviengsone Sysouvong, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Supunnee Sukasawett, Vinai Patan & Wipaporn Sittidej, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron B. Schweitzer -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC. Pedro Coj Cumes, Phaisit Sirimatrasit, Boonyarit Praphai, Kamphol Kiatwanakorn, Chaichana Kittironnakornkul & Supatra Wungmarn, Plaintiffs, represented by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC. J Akira LLC, doing business as ThaiNY, M-Thai, Thai Rice, Tom Yum & Michael P Bronstein, Defendants, represented by Bingchen Li -- eric.li@ncny-law.com -- Law Office of Z. Tan PLLC. VIMEO INC: Acaley Civils Right Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as Bradley Acaley, idividually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vimeo, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-10873, was removed from the Circuit Court of Illinois for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Oct 31, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07164 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights-related laws. Vimeo is an ad-free video platform headquartered in New York City, providing free video viewing services as a competitor to YouTube. In 2007, Vimeo became the first video sharing site to support high-definition video.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com Defendant Vimeo, Inc. is represented by: Joel Griswold, Esq. Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4088 E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com WAL MART: Court Takes Bid for Class Cert. under Submission ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as James S. Evans, the Plaintiff v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07641-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019, taking Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under submission, according to the Civil Minutes - General. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff are: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. William Matthew Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S Beverly Dr, Ste 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-4309 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Robert J Herrington, Esq. Naomi G Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP Los Angeles, CA Telephone: 310 586.7700 E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com beern@gtlaw.com WELLNX LIFE: Choo Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MISTY CHOO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLNX LIFE SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02517-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) dismissed with prejudice all the individual claims brought by Plaintiffs Choo and Diane E. Lee, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice all the class claims. The parties jointly stipulate to dismiss with prejudice all individual claims brought by Plaintiffs Choo and Lee, and all the class claims without prejudice. Judge Mueller is satisfied that dismissal of the action will result in no prejudice to the putative class members. The parties do not indicate whether the statute of limitations on the Plaintiffs' claims is "rapidly approaching" such that it is likely to prevent potential class members from pursuing individual claims. Furthermore, the Court never certified the class nor required the parties provide notice to the class of the action, and the parties represent that no putative class members have contacted counsel of either Party to inquire about the status of the case or the filing of additional claims. For these reasons, dismissal of the case is not likely to prejudice the potential class members. Judge Mueller is also satisfied no settlement or concession of class interests were made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests. The parties move to dismiss the class claims without prejudice, meaning the class members' rights to pursue individual claims are not extinguished by the dismissal. Accordingly, Judge Mueller approved parties' stipulation. The Judge dismissed with prejudice all of the individual claims and allegations brought by Choo and Lee. She dismissed without prejudice all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members. The Court, in its discretion, declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for the state courts. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/tXKbVv from Leagle.com. Misty Choo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Dianne E. Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ian James Barlow, Kershaw Cook & Talley PC, Adam A. Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf P.C., pro hac vice & Mark E. Silvey, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice. Wellnx Life Sciences, Inc. & Platinum US Distribution, Inc., Doing business as Wellnx Life Sciences, USA, Defendants, represented by Peter James Farnese -- pjf@beshadafarneselaw.com -- Beshada Farnese LLP. WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff in Coordes FDCPA Suit May Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MONTY AND MICHELLE COORDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0052-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint, and (ii) denied Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Class Action Complaint. The case arises out of Wells Fargo's use of flawed software to deny the Plaintiffs' request for a mortgage modification in connection with a federal program created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In 2005, Plaintiffs Monty and Michelle Coordes built a new home in Spokane Valley, Washington, secured by a mortgage serviced and later acquired by the Defendant. In early 2010, as a result of the economic downturn, Mr. Coordes became temporarily unemployed. In March 2010, the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant to seek assistance making their mortgage payments and to request relief in the form of a mortgage loan modification. In July 2010, Mr. Coordes obtained full-time employment. In August 2010, the Plaintiffs were offered a trial modification, which would have required them to pay back payments and penalties that they could not afford. In January 2011, the Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and their bankruptcy plan was approved in May. In July 2011, they again sought a mortgage modification from the Defendant. In December 2011, the Defendant rejected their mortgage modification application. In January 2012, the Plaintiffs lost their home in a foreclosure sale. In August 2018, the Defendant disclosed that a calculation error in its internal mortgage loan modification underwriting software resulted in the improper denial of approximately 625 modification applications that should have been granted. It discovered the software error as early as 2015. The error was reported to be an automated miscalculation of attorneys' fees that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer qualified for a mortgage loan modification pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises. In November 2018, the Defendant disclosed that the number of wrongful denials had been updated to 870. In a notice dated Sept. 11, 2018, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiffs to inform them that their mortgage loan modification was erroneously denied based on the calculation error. Attached to the letter was a check for $15,000. In November 2018, the Plaintiffs undertook mediation with the Defendant and were awarded an additional $25,000. On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendant claiming violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") and unjust enrichment. On Aug. 9, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs request the Court to take judicial notice of four consent orders from the United States Department of the Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency; a court order and two filings from Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-cv-07354-WHA, in the Northern District of California; and a copy of the Sept. 11, 2018 letter the Plaintiffs received from the Defendant notifying them of the calculation error. Judge Rice (i) declines to take judicial notice of the consent orders at this time to establish general background about the alleged misconduct; (ii) takes judicial notice of the Hernandez filings because Hernandez deals with similar conduct by the same Defendant as in the case; and (iii) takes judicial notice of the notification letter because it is incorporated into the Amended Complaint by reference. The Defendant requests the Court takes judicial notice of the deed of trust governing Plaintiffs' mortgage and a motion to dismiss and declaration filed in Hernandez. Judge Rice (i) takes judicial notice of the deed of trust; takes judicial notice of the motion and its supporting legal arguments; and (iii) holds that the Ferguson declaration is not subject to judicial notice. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CPA claim for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it argues the Plaintiffs' CPA claim is an impermissible attempt to enforce the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), which creates no private right of action. Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant wrongfully denied their mortgage modification application and failed to disclose for three years the software error that caused the wrongful application denial. Although the conduct is related to the Defendant's HAMP participation, the Plaintiffs do not seek to enforce HAMP. Instead, they allege the conduct constitutes unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of the CPA. HAMP is involved in the case as a "component" of the CPA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim is not an improper attempt to enforce the Defendant's HAMP agreement. Construing the allegations in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground is denied, Judge Rice rules. Because the benefits alleged to be the subject of the unjust enrichment are governed by the parties' express contract, the Plaintiffs are not able to maintain their unjust enrichment claim. Judge Rice grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. The Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to alternatively plead claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They imply that they brought quasi-contract claims in reliance on arguments the Defendant made in a similar case in the Northern District of California. Although the Plaintiffs imply bad faith in the Defendant's allegedly inconsistent positions about whether contract terms govern the relationships in Hernandez and the case, Judge Rice does not find the Defendant's arguments to be inconsistent. Regardless, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Where the Defendant has allegedly already conceded error in its denial of the Plaintiffs' loan modification application, justice requires such leave. The Defendant moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations. In the context of a motion to strike class allegations, in particular where such a motion is brought in advance of the close of class discovery, it is properly the Defendant who must bear the burden of proving that the class is not certifiable. Judge Rice denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations. The Defendant cites to the Ferguson declaration, which the Judge declined to notice, to argue that the Hernandez case puts the Plaintiffs on notice that only 14 Washington borrowers were potentially affected by the calculation error. The Plaintiffs argue the size of the class is unknown because the Defendant continues to investigate the matter. This disputed issue of fact indicates that the motion to dismiss stage is too early to determine whether a Washington class is sufficiently numerous to sustain a class action. For stated reasons, Judge Rice granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike Amended Class Action Complaint. The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's original Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class Action Complain. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint without delay. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/PSbmye from Leagle.com. Monty Coordes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Michelle Coordes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Chanele N. Reyes -- creyes@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Alison E. Chase, Keller Rohrback LLP CA, pro hac vice, Matthew J. Preusch, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Kobi K. Brinson, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Pilar C. French, Lane Powell PC & Rudy A. Englund -- englundr@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC. WEST MARINE: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Adams Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant West Marine Products, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Adrianne Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was originally filed on January 22, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (assigned Case No. 19CIV00436). The case was later removed to the District Court. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime compensation, provide meal periods, authorize and permit rest periods, pay minimum wage, timely pay wages, provide accurate wage statements, and maintain accurate payroll records. West Marine operates as a specialty retailer of boating supplies, gear, apparel, footwear, and other water life-related products. The appellate case is captioned as Adrianne Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., Case No. 19-80141, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ADRIANNE ADAMS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, is represented by: Heather Marie Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 E-mail: hdavis@littler.com Defendant-Petitioner WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation, is represented by: Ashley Farrell Pickett, Esq. Mark D. Kemple, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (949) 702-8117 E-mail: farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com kemplem@gtlaw.com WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal from Dismissal Order Pending -------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal filed by City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust remains pending. On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively. The complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. [John] Haley, [Dominic] Casserley, and [Jeffrey] Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. The complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents' motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and Alaska's cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint. On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and, on July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. On August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal from the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The parties are currently briefing the appeal. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Rehearing by the 5th Cir. En Banc Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that certain plaintiff-appellants have filed a petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc on the class action suit related to The Stanford Financial Group's collapse. The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to Stanford's collapse, for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County), alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the ‘OSIC’) against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin. * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter. Further details on this settlement in principle are given below. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement and the related bar orders described below, if upheld through any appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet. The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions above objected to the settlement, and a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision. On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders. Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeals was heard on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders. On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the 'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a response to the Petition. The Petition currently remains pending. The Company will not make the $120 million settlement payment until the settlement is not subject to any further appeal. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Petition for Rehearing in Regents Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit have denied the petition of class action defendants for a rehearing en banc. On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management, and certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person' liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount. On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety. On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the parties completed briefing on the appeal. On May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, and on August 30, 2019, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings consistent with its decision. On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit denied on September 27, 2019. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WINCO FOODS: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 24, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying the class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to the claims against Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code: Class: "all hourly, non-exempt employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and WinCo Holdings, Inc. working in retail stores or distribution centers in the State of California at any time from August 23, 2013 through the date of certification: Drug-Testing Subclass: "all Class Members who were required to undergo mandatory drug-testing after August 23, 2013 through the date of certification. Rest Break Subclass: "all Class Members who worked any shift at least 3.5 hours in length in a distribution center at any time from August 23, 2013 through the date of certification; and On-Premises Rest Break Subclass: "all Class Members 15 who worked any shift at least 3.5 hours in length but less than 4 hours in length in a distribution center at any time from August 23, 2013 through the date of certification"; 2. appointing Alfred Johnson and proposed plaintiffs Thomas Wilson and Isaac Clark as class representatives; and 3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Melissa Grant, Esq. Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly DeSario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E, Ste 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com XPO LOGISTICS: $16.5MM Deal in Carter FLSA Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned RON CARTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01231-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted (i) the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and service awards. Plaintiffs Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales commenced the lawsuit as a class and collective action alleging that XPO LM misclassified as independent contractors a class of delivery drivers who entered into Delivery Service Agreements with and personally drove for XPO LM, and as a result, failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses and violated various wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and the overtime requirements under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add a PAGA penalties claim. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action in October 2016, and 116 individuals filed consents to join the FLSA collective action. Following discovery, the parties reached a settlement in April 2019, and the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement and conditional certification of the Settlement Class on June 27, 2019, while directing that the time provided in the Settlement Agreement for Class Members to deposit checks be expanded to 180 days. Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and their motion for attorneys' fees and service awards. No Class Member has requested to opt out of the Settlement Class or objected to the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Class consists of all persons who (a) entered into a Delivery Service Agreement either in his or her individual capacity or through a business entity with XPO LM or 3PD, and (b) according to XPO LM's records was a driver who performed delivery services pursuant to that Delivery Service Agreement, and (c) performed some portion of those delivery services within the state of California, (d) at any time during the Class Period [March 12, 2012 through Feb. 21, 2019]. The gross settlement amount of $16.5 million, represents approximately 20% of the maximum verdict in the case. The net settlement amount is at least $12,204,500. According to the Settlement Administrator, the Class Members can expect to receive on average at least $14,775.70; 19 will receive at least $100,000. The Settlement Agreement contemplates a second distribution to the Class for any amounts from uncashed checks, with any residual amount from uncashed checks or other remaining funds to be paid to the Legal Aid at Work ("LAAW") (formerly Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center) as the cy pres beneficiary. LAAW's work on-behalf of low-wage workers, particularly in the area of wage and hour, has a close nexus to the rights that the Plaintiffs sought to vindicate in the action. The Class Counsel request an award of $4,125,000 for attorney fees and litigation expenses incurred in the case. The Plaintiffs seek class representative service awards of $20,000 for five of the named Plaintiffs (Ronnel Carter, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald, Joel Morales, and Jerry Green). Judge Orrick concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and merits final approval. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and class certification, and distribution will be made in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. He also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and class representative service awards in the amount of $4,125,000 to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs; $20,000 each to Ronnel Carter, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald, Joel Morales and the Estate of Jerry Green and $2,500 to the Estate of Juan Estrada for class representative service awards. The Counsel are reminded to submit a Post-Distribution Accounting, pursuant to the Court's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of attorney fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7PTLbP from Leagle.com. Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald & Joel Morales, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Sayoko Endo -- aendo@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP, Giselle Olmedo, Leonard Cardner, LLP & Jennifer Grace Keating -- jkeating@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP. XPO Logistics, Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam Lewis Lounsbury -- Adam.Lounsbury@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, PC, pro hac vice, Antonio Carlos Raimundo, Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Robert Irving Lockwood -- robert@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- Pacific Employment Law LLP. ZENDESK INC: Faces Reidinger Class Action in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB. On October 24, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB, against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act"), purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019, inclusive. The claims are based upon allegations that defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of our prior public filings. Zendesk said, "To this point, no discovery has occurred in this case. The class action is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential liability to the individual defendants, if any. Management believes that the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions. We cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the above described matter." Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer support platform. The Company offers applications that allow clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. ********* 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 ***