/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 13, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 249 Headlines ABBVIE INC: Faces Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation ABBVIE INC: Summary Judgment Ruling under Appeal ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act ANIXTER INT'L: Kent Securities Suit Questions Proposed CD&R Sale ANTHEM COMPANIES: Garner Wage & Hour Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky BELLACOR.COM INC: Faces Inga Suit Over False Reference Pricing BLUE POINT AUTO: Violates FLSA, Ozkilinc Suit Asserts BOB HENRIQUEZ: Sheltair Aviation Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CALERES INC: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Gagliastre Appeals E.D. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir. CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Roberts Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Thomas Moves for Certification of Class CORECIVIC INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ndambi FLSA Suit COTTI FOODS: Blanchard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COTTON COMMERCIAL: Cabre Moves to Certify Class of Laborers COTY INC: Phillips Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed CSX TRANSPORTATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Diehl Class Suit CYPRESS ENERGY: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors ELITE EYE CARE: Class of Hourly Employees Certified in Wood Suit EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Guzman FCRA Suit in New York EXELON CORP: Sellers's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Victorino Suit FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Distributors' OT Wages, Busby Claims FONTANA & FONTANA: Bardales Moves to Certify Louisiana Class FORD MOTOR: Sued by Latimer for Interfering Rights Under FMLA FRONT YARD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 30 GANLEY FORD: Faces Bluford-Curry Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Class of Deaf Persons Certified in NAD Suit HP PROPERTY: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Files Suit in S.D. California INVICTUS INC: Refuses to Pay Trainees' OT Wages, Ciavolino Says JOMAR CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Alvarenga Says LANPHERE ENTERPRISES: Knecht Sues Over Unfair Car Sales Practices LENDUP GLOBAL: Faces Alsuliman Suit Alleging TCPA Violation LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.7MM Gonzalez-Tzita Deal Gets Prelim. Approval LUCKY BRAND: Issues Inaccurate Wage Statements, Echeverria Claims LUNA'S RESTAURANT: Illegally Withheld Earned Wages, Flores Claims MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Bodor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Class Partly Okayed MDL 2797: Final Judgment Entered in Wells Fargo Insurance Suit MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Ryder Suit MERCON CONTRACTING: Arriaga Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL METHUEN, MA: Pimentel's Bid to Certify Class of Arrestees Denied MICHAEL KORS: Hamilton Employee Suit Removed to C.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Wensley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Griesch Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kanahaiya Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts OVINNET INC: Akhramenko Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Overarching Conspiracy Allegation Nixed PERRIGO CO: Stay in Baton Class Suit Extended Until Feb. 10 PLOMO LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages POWER FUNDING: Faces Abante TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy PRICE CHOPPER: Sued by Fore-Heron for Mislabeling Almond Milk QRS LLC: Bradford Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA RTA CABINET: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D Pa. SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ragis Fraud Class Suit in Vermont SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Salvador Says SISYPHIAN LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers Under FLSA, Doe Says SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Employees Class Certified in Huddleston Suit SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Manual Workers SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS: Fails to Protect PII and PHI, Condon Claims SRA ASSOCIATES: Zarczynski Moves for Class Certification SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Seeks to Certify 3 Classes TENNESSEE: Atkins Brings Appeals to 6th Circuit TICKET LIQUIDATOR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRIAD CATALOG: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania TRUE DIALOG: Silvera Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas TRUEACCORD CORP: Peters Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida TRULIEVE INC: Faces Jaslow Suit Over Marketing That Violates TCPA UNITED STATES: Azar Appeals Order in Philbrick Suit VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Files ADA Class Action in New York VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Colorado WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit WILLIAMS TANK: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. X FINANCIAL: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Claims XPO PORT SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in Arrellano Suit Withdrawn ZUMIEZ INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims Still Pending at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,500 Claims at September 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $213.0MM Liability Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,701 Claims at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Morse TEC Has $0.8BB A&E Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,030 Claims Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air Canada Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.9MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $13MM Verdict against Hillshire ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Mesothelioma Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 161 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $592MM Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes $0.5BB Reserves for Zurich ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $245.8MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $233MM Loss Reserves at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $37MM to Honeywell in 3Q 2019 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $805,000 Liability at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 113 Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at Sept. 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Remains in Parsons Class Suit vs. Liggett ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $77.8MM Libby Costs at September 30 ********* ABBVIE INC: Faces Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect HUMIRA purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's HUMIRA patent portfolio violate state and federal antitrust laws. The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ABBVIE INC: Summary Judgment Ruling under Appeal ------------------------------------------------ AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a court order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action suit entitled, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., has been appealed. In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payers who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In July 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. In February 2019, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion, which the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Gunderson, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-08017 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2019), alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act and the California Labor Code. The lawsuit is brought on behalf former employees, who worked for the Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the Defendant on October 15, 2019, and within 30 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act, and the California Labor Code. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendant 60 days' wages and ERISA benefits, none of which has been paid, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant. The Defendant was a Delaware corporation located at Sunnyvale, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Reeder, Esq. REEDER LAW CORPORATION 1875 Century Park E, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 774-4060 Fax: (310) 295-2290 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 ANIXTER INT'L: Kent Securities Suit Questions Proposed CD&R Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., SAMUEL ZELL, LORD JAMES BLYTH, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA WALKER BYNOE, ROBERT J. ECK, WILLIAM A. GALVIN, F. PHILIP HANDY, MELVYN N. KLEIN, JAMIE MOFFITT, GEORGE MUNOZ, SCOTT R. PEPPET, VALARIE L. SHEPPARD, WILLIAM S. SIMON, and CHARLES M. SWOBODA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02239 (D. Del., Dec. 9, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Anixter will be acquired by affiliates of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. On October 30, 2019, Anixter's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CD&R Arrow Parent, LLC and CD&R Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Anixter's stockholders will receive $82.50 in cash for each share of Anixter common stock they own. On December 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Among other things, the Plaintiff asserts, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections, including (i) all line items used to calculate (a) Adjusted EBITDA and (b) Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company. Without this information, stockholders may have the mistaken belief that, if these potentially interested parties wished to come forward with a superior offer, they are or were permitted to do so, when in fact they are or were contractually prohibited from doing so, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the owner of Anixter common stock. Anixter is a leading global distributor of Network & Security Solutions, Electrica & Electronic Solutions, and Utility Power Solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Garner Wage & Hour Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Lynn Garner, Twylia Robbins, and Alisha Recktenwald on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 19-CI-002536, was removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division 13 of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on Dec. 9, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00900-CHB to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly classified them, and all other individuals, who have worked for the Company as "Utilization Management Nurses" or in other similar job positions in Kentucky since April 24, 2014, as exempt from the overtime pay requirements under Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, thereby, depriving them of overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates or pay for all hours worked above forty hours per workweek.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Calabrese, Esq. Steven T. Clark, Esq. STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC 500 West Jefferson St., Suite 2000 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 333-6000 Email: jeff.calabrese@skofirm.com steven.clark@skofirm.com - and – Jon D. Meer, Esq. Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com elevy@seyfarth.com BELLACOR.COM INC: Faces Inga Suit Over False Reference Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Inga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BELLACOR.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10406 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019), seeks monetary damages and restitution from the Defendant arising from its deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on merchandise sold in its e-commerce retail store, Bellacor.com. The practice of false reference pricing occurs when a retailer fabricates a fake regular, original, and/or former reference price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The result is a sham price disparity that misleads consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal and induces them into making a purchase. In reality, the practice artificially inflates the true market price for these items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and, therefore, the value, ascribed to these products by consumers. Retailers drastically benefit from employing false reference pricing schemes and experience increased sales because consumers use advertised reference prices to make purchase decisions. Bellacor's merchandise sold through its e-commerce channel was never offered for sale, nor actually sold, at the advertised reference prices, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, he points out, the advertised reference prices were false and used solely to induce consumers into believing that the merchandise was once sold at the reference price. Bellacor engaged in this practice knowing full well that the advertised products were never actually offered or sold at the advertised reference prices in order to facilitate sham markdowns and drive sales, thereby deceiving its customers into believing they were getting a substantial bargain. Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, Bellacor violated California and federal law which prohibits the advertisement of goods for sale as discounted from former prices that are false and which prohibits the dissemination of misleading statements about the existence and amount of price reductions, the Plaintiffs asserts. Specifically, Bellacor violated: California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code; California's False Advertising Law, Business & Professions Code; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" and false advertisements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, in reliance on the Defendant's false and deceptive advertising, purchased a Fill Power White Medium King Down Cotton Pillow from Bellacor's e-commerce retail store on his computer. The Defendant sells lighting and home furnishings and more in its e-commerce store to consumers throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-762-1903 Facsimile: 619-756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com BLUE POINT AUTO: Violates FLSA, Ozkilinc Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Point Auto Wash Realty, LLC. The case is styled as Bedri Ozkilinc, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Point Auto Wash Realty, LLC, Richard Doe, Frank Doe, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06903 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bluepoint is a privately held company car wash in Blue Point, New York, and is a Single Location business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BOB HENRIQUEZ: Sheltair Aviation Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Henriquez. The case is styled as Sheltair Aviation Tampa LLC, Plaintiff v. Bob Henriquez, Douglas Belden, Jim Zingale, Defendants, Case No. 19-CA-012350 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Dec. 6, 2019). The case type is stated as "Declaratory Judgment". Sheltair Aviation is an International Airport in Tampa, Florida.[BN] CALERES INC: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Himelda Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CALERES, INC. D/B/A NATURALIZER, Case No. 1:19-cv-11184 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. Naturalizer operates multiple retail locations in the State of New York, and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 770-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Gagliastre Appeals E.D. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Chris Gagliastre, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit titled Chris Gagliastre, et al. v. Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. The appellate case is captioned as Chris Gagliastre, et al. v. Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 19-2213, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 4, 2019, the Defendants appealed a ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Chris Gagliastre, et al. v. Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 19-2170. The lawsuit was previously transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK. The case alleges that the Defendants have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly applying a tip credit to servers' wages. The case also asserts impermissible deductions in violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Defendants operate a restaurant. The Plaintiffs worked for Captain George's as servers.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRIS GAGLIASTRE, ZACHARY TARRY and OLGA ZAYNEEVA are represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew Paul Kimble, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com - and - Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 8151 Peters Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Joshua Lee Jewett, Esq. Julia Rust, Esq. PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC 101 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 216-0226 E-mail: jjewett@piercemccoy.com julia@piercemccoy.com - and - Patrick James McLaughlin, Esq. WUKELA LAW FIRM 403 2nd Loop Road P. O. Box 13057 Florence, SC 29505-0000 Telephone: (843) 669-5634 E-mail: Patrick@wukelalaw.com Defendants-Appellees CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA LP, CAPTAIN GEORGE'SOF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., SHERRY PITSILIDES, GEORGE PITSILIDES and PITSILIDES MANAGEMENT, LLC, are represented by: Christopher Alan Abel, Esq. William Andrew McNinch Burke, Esq. WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC 440 Monticello Avenue Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 628-5554 E-mail: cabel@wilsav.com wburke@wilsav.com CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Roberts Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONNECT AMERICA.COM, LLC. The case is styled as JOSEPH ROBERTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CONNECT AMERICA.COM, LLC also known as: MEDICAL ALERT, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05765-JHS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Connect America.com, LLC provides mobile medical alert systems. The Company offers medical alert system kit, as well as alert mobile unit, plug in battery charger, and instruction manual.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CYNTHIA Z. LEVIN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 1150 FIRST AVENUE STE 501 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 Phone: (888) 595-9111 Email: czlevin@comcast.net CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Thomas Moves for Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Thomas moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled BRANDI THOMAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01804-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 contends. 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 asserts. 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 CORECIVIC INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ndambi FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Desmond Ndambi, Mbah Emmanuel Abi and Nkemtoh Moses Awombang filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Desmond Ndambi, et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-03521-RDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Issuance of Notice. The Plaintiffs are former Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees who were held at the Cibola County Correctional Facility in New Mexico while awaiting civil immigration proceedings. They bring the purported class action against CoreCivic, who owns and operates the detention facility where Plaintiffs were held pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service Agreement between ICE and Cibola County. The Defendant operates a work program at Cibola where detainees are permitted to voluntarily perform work duties in the facility. The Plaintiffs participated in this work program at Cibola. They filed a complaint in the Court based on federal question, diversity, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 13311, 13322, and 13673. They allege they were employees of CoreCivic under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") and were paid at a rate below that which is required by the FLSA and NMMWA and that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by these alleged violations. The appellate case is captioned as Desmond Ndambi, et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 19-2207, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Response Brief is due on January 9, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DESMOND NDAMBI, MBAH EMMANUEL ABI and NKEMTOH MOSES AWOMBANG, individually and on behalf of all others, are represented by: Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq. Robert S. Libman, Esq. Nancy L. Maldonado, Esq. Matthew Owens, Esq. Deanna N. Pihos, Esq. MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND PC 325 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 E-mail: bblustein@lawmbg.com rlibman@lawmbg.com nmaldonado@lawmbg.com mowens@lawmbg.com dpihos@lawmbg.com - and - Stacy N. Cammarano, Esq. Michael Hancock, Esq. Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-3965 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: scammarano@cohenmilstein.com mhancoc@cohenmilstein.com jsellers@cohenmilstein.com - and - Robert Andrew Free, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF R. ANDREW FREE P. O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 Telephone: (844) 321-3221 E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com Defendant-Appellee CORECIVIC, INC., is represented by: Matthew D. Berkowitz, Esq. Kenneth M. Bernas, Esq. CARR MALONEY, PC 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1806 Telephone: (202) 310-5541 E-mail: matthew.berkowitz@carrmaloney.com maxwell.bernas@carrmaloney.com - and - Jacob B. Lee, Esq. Rachel N. Love, Esq. Daniel Struck, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI AND ACEDO PLC 3100 West Ray Road Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: jlee@strucklove.com rlove@strucklove.com dstruck@strucklove.com COTTI FOODS: Blanchard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against COTTI FOODS, LLC. The case is styled as Selena Blanchard individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTTI FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103413 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 6, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Cotti Foods Corporation operates a chain of restaurants. The Company retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premises and off-premises consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by LAURA G. VAN NOTE, ESQ. COTTON COMMERCIAL: Cabre Moves to Certify Class of Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled PEDRO J. CABRE, et al. v. COTTON COMMERCIAL USA, INC., SUPERIOR STAFFING & PAYROLL SERVICES, VCDP COMPANIES INC., and DANIEL PAZ, in his individual capacity, Case No. 4:19-cv-10163-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) authorize their case to proceed as a collective action as to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims; (2) certify a class under Florida law; (3) provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the names, last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all employees, who worked for the Defendants as laborers at the Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Windward Pointe and/or the Hilton Key Largo Resort in the Fall of 2017; and (4) direct the issuance of the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice to all prospective collective and class action members. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants Cotton Commercial USA, Inc. ("Cotton"), Superior Staffing & Payroll Services ("SSPS"), VCDP Companies Inc., and Daniel Paz to perform manual labor cleaning up two hotel sites in Florida following Hurricane Irma. The Plaintiffs pursue this action in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), for violations of minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. They also pursue this action under Florida common law for failure to provide compensation at a promised hourly rate higher than that of the applicable minimum wage. In this Motion, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant their motion and certify an opt-in collective action for their FLSA claims and an opt-out class action for their state law claims, as well as appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective action and class action composed of "all individuals employed by Defendants on an hourly basis to provide clean-up services in Florida during 2017 following Hurricane Irma at the Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Windward Pointe, and/or the Hilton Key Largo Resort" ("Florida Class").[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Mierzwa, Jr., Esq. Erin F. Medeiros, Esq. MIERZWA & FLOYD, P.A. 3900 Woodlake Blvd., Suite 212 Lake Worth, FL 33463 Telephone: (561) 966-1200 Facsimile: (561) 966-1231 E-mail: mmierzwa@mierzwalaw.com emedeiros@mierzwalaw.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com slf@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com - and - Kerry O'Brien, Esq. RESILIENCE FORCE JUSTICE PROJECT 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (202) 316-8049 Facsimile: (773) 214-0670 E-mail: kobrien@resilienceforce.org Defendant Cotton Commercial USA is represented by: Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 777 South Flagler Driver, Suite 215-East West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 820-0248 E-mail: Dale.evans@lockelord.com - and - J. Michael Rose, Esq. Rufino Gaytan III, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 226-1200 E-mail: mrose@lockelord.com rufino.gaytan@lockelord.com COTY INC: Phillips Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case, Phillips v. Coty, have voluntarily dismissed their complaint with prejudice. Two purported stockholder class action complaints concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the "Cottage Tender Offer") and the Schedule 14D-9 were filed by putative stockholders against the Company and the directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, but have not yet been served. In both complaints, the plaintiffs allege that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits certain information, including, among other things, certain financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of Centerview Partners LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws and seek, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief. The cases are captioned Phillips v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00628-LPS and Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00650-LPS. On October 31, 2019, the plaintiffs in Phillips v. Coty voluntarily dismissed their complaint with prejudice. Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty. The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York. As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB Cosmetics B.V. CSX TRANSPORTATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Diehl Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DENORA DIEHL, ROBERT COOK, JENNIFER QUEEN, and LORELEI GORDON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00122-KRG (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Kim R. Gibson grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The case arises out of a train derailment that occurred near Hyndman, Pennsylvania, in August 2017. This train was carrying mixed freight, including propane, molten sulfur, asphalt, and phosphoric acid residue. The derailment resulted in a fire that burned for two days and led to a mandatory evacuation of approximately 1,000 people from nearby homes for varying lengths of time. Emergency management officials set up a mandatory evacuation zone within a one-mile radius of the derailment and emergency responders went door to door to ensure the evacuation of all residents. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint alleging that Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. negligently operated a train, causing it to derail. The Plaintiffs aver that they and other proposed class members were subsequently forced to evacuate their homes and subjected to inconvenience as the Defendant repaired the derailment site. Following the derailment, the Defendant set up community outreach centers to assist and compensate individuals, who were inconvenienced, required medical treatment, or suffered financial setbacks as a result of the derailment. Each household within the evacuation zone was entitled to submit a claim to receive an inconvenience payment. The Defendant has reimbursed individuals for expenses, such as costs of food, incidentals, hotel accommodations, lost wages, and medical expenses. The Defendant additionally provided food, bottled water, transportation, and cleaning services to those affected by the derailment and the Defendant's outreach program is still open to the Hyndman community for reimbursement. In his Memorandum Opinion, Judge Gibson holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show physical harm to either their persons or their property. Although the Plaintiffs assert they suffer from fear and anxiety as a result of the derailment, those symptoms have not physically manifested, Judge Gibson notes. He adds that there has been no allegation, nor support in the record, that the fumes from the derailment were toxic or that they caused any injuries to the Plaintiffs or anyone else. Judge Gibson also opines, among other things, that fear and anxiety without physical manifestation are economic losses that are not recoverable under Pennsylvania law.[CC] CYPRESS ENERGY: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Diaz, Vicente Gonzalez, and Paul Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CYPRESS ENERGY MANAGEMENT TIR, LLC and TULSA INSPECTION RESOURCES, LLC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00668-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., Dec. 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they and the other workers like them regularly worked for TIR in excess of 40 hours each week, but these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, TIR improperly classified the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for TIR throughout the past three years as inspectors. TIR is an oil and gas and construction staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and – Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 516-7800 Fax: (405) 516-7859 Email: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com ELITE EYE CARE: Class of Hourly Employees Certified in Wood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DYLAN WOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ELITE EYE CARE & OPTICAL, LLC, and DR. CADE M. WILSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00026-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies this group: All persons who work or worked for Elite Eye Care & Optical, LLC, and Dr. Cade Wilson as full-time hourly employees at any time since 8 February 2017. Dylan Wood worked as a medical assistant for Elite Eye Care between December 2017 and January 2019. He says he was paid hourly, worked more than 40 hours a week, and was not paid any extra for his overtime work. He moved to conditionally certify a collective action, and the parties have settled in principle and stipulated to a group. The Court agrees that certain Elite Eye Care employees were subject to a common wage policy and are similarly situated. As stipulated, Defendants Elite Eye and Wilson must provide the Plaintiff's counsel (on an electronic spreadsheet) a list of names, addresses, and e-mail address of group members. The stipulated notice, proposed consent forms, e-mail, and reminder postcard are approved with tweaks. Judge Marshall provides these tweaks and a schedule: -- Please name the employer in the group description; -- Remove "Court" from the subject line of the e-mail; -- Delete the dash in "hourly paid" each time that phrase appears; -- Plaintiff's counsel may send these messages by regular mail and e-mail, as agreed by the parties; -- There's no need for text messages, too; and -- Here's the schedule: * Elite Eye Care and Dr. Wilson must produce spreadsheet by December 20, 2019; * Notice period opens on December 27, 2019; * Opt-in period closes on April 10, 2020; and * Joint Motion to approve and dismiss or Joint Status Report must be filed by March 11, 2020.[CC] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Guzman FCRA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. The case is styled as Carolina Guzman, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06891 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer credit information to financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com EXELON CORP: Sellers's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on December 9, 2019, in the case styled Gregory Sellers v. Exelon Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07179 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class for Stage−One Conditional Certification is taken under advisement; -- Defendants' response shall be filed by January 15, 2020; -- Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by January 22, 2020; and -- Hearing set for January 29, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.[CC] FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Victorino Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant FCA US LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Carlos Victorino, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 28, 2019, this Dodge Dart clutch lawsuit has been certified as a class action, but only for customers who purchased or leased the cars in California. The original class action was filed to represent Dart customers nationwide, including owners and lessees of used cars. But the lawsuit now includes all consumers, who purchased or leased new 2013-2016 Dodge Darts from authorized dealerships in California. The Darts must be equipped with Fiat C635 manual transmissions and the cars must have been purchased or leased "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Plaintiff Carlos Victorino says the Fiat C635 manual transmission caused his clutch to fail and stick to the floor. According to the class action, defects in the hydraulic clutch systems existed since the cars were first sold or leased, defects that cause the clutch pedal to lose pressure and stay on the floorboard. This prevents a driver from shifting gears and allegedly causes a dangerous driving situation that leads to a stalled car. The appellate case is captioned as Carlos Victorino, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 19-80149, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CARLOS VICTORINO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, is represented by: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC 17383 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Telephone: (844) 774-2020 Facsimile: (844) 774-2020 E-mail: mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com - and - Cody Robert Padgett, Esq. Tarek Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-8029 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com Defendant-Petitioner FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Kathy Wisniewski, Esq. Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6337 E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Distributors' OT Wages, Busby Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Busby, Danny West, Chris Tyra, and John Tyra, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BIRMINGHAM, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01971-RDP (N.D. Ala., Dec. 6, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors, thereby, denying them compensation and benefits provided by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Distributors. The Defendants manufactures, sells, and distributes bakery and snack products to retail customers using a centralized network of communication, distribution and warehouse facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq. Kevin W. Jent, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 314-0545 Email: rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com kjent@wigginschilds.com FONTANA & FONTANA: Bardales Moves to Certify Louisiana Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify their case titled CORNELIA BARDALES and DONALD RUSSELL v. FONTANA & FONTANA, LLC a Louisiana limited liability company; DARRYL M. FONTANA, an individual; and JULES A. FONTANA, III, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-00340-WBV-DMD (E.D. La.), to proceed as a class action against the Defendants for a Louisiana class of persons, who: (i) within one year prior to the filing of this action (ii) were sent a letter by Defendants in the form of Exhibit 1 or 2, attached to the Amended Complaint, (iii) in an attempt to recover an alleged obligation accruing interest and/or fees incurred for personal, family, or household purposes; (iv) in which Defendants did not disclose that they were continuing to add interest and/or fees to the subject account. On April 23, 2019, this litigation was filed as a class action alleging that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act had been violated. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' letters, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Amended Complaint, failed to notify the Plaintiffs that interest and/or fees are continuing to accrue on the debt.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com - and - Keren E. Gesund, Esq. GESUND AND PAILET, LLC 3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 836-2888 E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com FORD MOTOR: Sued by Latimer for Interfering Rights Under FMLA ------------------------------------------------------------- John Latimer, on his own behalf and on Behalf of the Class v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-02845 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 9, 2019), seeks damages from the Defendant for systematically interfering with rights guaranteed under the Family and Medical Leave Act. From the time he was approved for leave in 2010, Mr. Latimer periodically took intermittent FMLA leave. Each time he took intermittent FMLA leave for his migraines, Ford assessed a full or partial absence aggregated towards the 35 absence penalty. Most years, this was not an issue for Mr. Latimer, as he did not ordinarily reach the 35 aggregated absences to trigger the penalty. However, in 2018, Latimer suffered an unusually high number of migraines, requiring him to exercise his FMLA leave more frequently. Ordinarily, due to his seniority, Mr. Latimer received a Vacation Entitlement of four weeks, or 160 paid hours. However, as a result of his exercise of FMLA leave, combined with other absences, he exceeded the 35 aggregated absences in 2018. Mr. Latimer was penalized with a 40-hour reduction in his vacation pay at the time of his June 1, 2019 vacation eligibility date. Had his FMLA absences in 2018 properly been categorized as "Excused" and consistent with the FMLA, his Vacation Entitlement would not have been reduced, he contends. Ford has willfully enforced this policy in knowing violation of the FMLA, or reckless disregard of FMLA requirements, since at least 2015, says the complaint. John Latimer has been a UAW-member employee at the Lima Engine Plant since 2000. Ford Motor Company is in the business of designing and manufacturing automobiles and employs approximately 191,000 people worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq. Jake A. Elliott, Esq. MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A. 111 E. Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870-2517 Phone: (419) 624-3000 Facsimile: (419) 624-0707 Email: dmj@murrayandmurray.com jae@murrayandmurray.com FRONT YARD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al., has set a hearing to consider final approval of the parties' settlement for January 30, 2020. On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as Defendants the Company, its former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen"), Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., and other third-party entities. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the Defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be Lead Plaintiff and denying the other motion to be Lead Plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The Plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the Defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration had been denied. Shortly thereafter, discovery commenced. On October 10, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added a second Lead Plaintiff to the case. The allegations and causes of action asserted by the Plaintiffs were virtually identical to the prior complaint, except that they added what the Plaintiffs claimed was additional detail in support of their allegations. On December 7, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on December 31, 2018, and Defendants filed their reply brief on January 24, 2019. On February 21, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an order that granted Defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety. On February 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 14 days. On March 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, and on April 12, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 13, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion on May 31, 2019. On June 12, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Judge Thompson granted Defendants' motion to dismiss any alleged misrepresentation made after each Plaintiff's final purchase of securities. Judge Thompson denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on the remaining grounds. On June 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to certify interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit of Judge Thompson's Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on July 10, 2019 and Defendants' reply in support of the motion was filed on July 24, 2019. On August 6, 2019, Judge Thompson denied Defendants' motion to certify interlocutory appeal. Separately, on July 5, 2019, Judge Thompson accepted the case schedule proposed by the parties, and discovery resumed. The deadline for the completion of fact discovery was November 8, 2019, the deadline for the completion of expert discovery was January 30, 2020, and the deadline to submit dispositive motions was February 27, 2020. On October 8, 2019, based on input from a mediator, the company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with Plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $15.5 million in exchange for, among various other terms, a full release of claims by Plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of shareholders. On the same date, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and ancillary documents, which included the stipulation and agreement of settlement. On October 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, approving the form and manner of notice and setting a hearing date for final approval of the settlement for January 30, 2020. Proceeds from the directors' and officers' insurance policies will fund $5.5 million of the settlement. Front Yard said, "We have included the settlement amount, net of insurance coverage, as a component of other expense within the interim condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2019." Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to metropolitan areas. The company is based in Christiansted, Virgin Islands. GANLEY FORD: Faces Bluford-Curry Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Bluford-Curry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GANLEY FORD, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-02833-SL (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Class of Deaf Persons Certified in NAD Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson grants the Plaintiffs' Assented-to Motion to Certify the Class for Settlement Purposes and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit titled NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, et al. v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, and the PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Case No. 3:15-cv-30023-KAR (D. Mass.). Plaintiffs National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"), C. Wayne Dore, Christy Smith, and Lee Nettles commenced this putative class action in February 2015. On behalf of a proposed class of deaf and hard of hearing individuals, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants, Harvard University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College were in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because of an alleged lack of close captioning or unintelligible captioning of videos and audio tracks made publicly available by Harvard. Following lengthy negotiations, the parties have reached a settlement and executed a proposed consent decree. Judge Robertson certified this class for settlement purposes: All persons (other than students of Harvard University) who, at any time between February 11, 2013 and the date of preliminary approval of this settlement, have claimed or could have claimed to assert a right under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and/or other federal, state or local statutes or regulations that set forth standards or obligations coterminous with or equivalent to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act or any of the rules or regulations promulgated thereunder, alleging that they are deaf or hard of hearing and that Harvard has failed to make accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing online content posted and available for the general public that is produced, created, hosted, linked to, or embedded by Harvard. The Court appoints Named Plaintiffs C. Wayne Dore, Christy Smith, and Lee Nettles as class representatives. The Court appoints these lawyers as class counsel: Joseph Sellers, Esq., and Shaylyn Cochran, Esq., of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Thomas P. Murphy, Esq., Tatum A. Pritchard, Esq., and Caitlin Parton, Esq., of the Disability Law Center, Inc.; Amy Farr Robertson, Esq., of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center; Arlene Mayerson, Esq., and Namita Gupta, Esq., of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.; and Howard Rosenblum, Esq., of the National Association of the Deaf. The proposed Consent Decree is preliminarily approved. The proposed notice and the jointly proposed plan for dissemination of the proposed notice is also approved. The Court sets these deadlines: a. Plaintiffs will issue the notice to the class by December 16, 2019; b. The deadline to submit objections to the settlement in accordance with the instructions in the notice is February 10; 2020; c. Responses to objections will be submitted by February 17, 2020; and d. A fairness hearing will be held on February 25, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.[CC] HP PROPERTY: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, PIONEER ACQUISITIONS LLC, and ASSA ABLOY INC., Case No. 2019CH14082 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendants, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail their unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data. Unlike ID badges or pass codes – which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each individual. The Defendants' use of this technology exposes workers to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendants disregards the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants have violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff to collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by BIPA. Plaintiff Joe Fisher is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois. The Defendants manage residential rental properties on the south side of Chicago and purchase, renovate, and manage multifamily rental buildings throughout the City of Chicago.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inmediata Health Group Corp. The case is styled as Vicki Stasi, Shane White, Crystal Garcia, individually and on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Inmediata Health Group Corp., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02353-JM-LL (S.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Inmediata is a health care value-added intermediary providing clearinghouse services. It provides a full suite of software and business process outsourcing solutions for health plans, hospitals, IPAs, and independent physicians.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Ahdoot and Wolfson PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com INVICTUS INC: Refuses to Pay Trainees' OT Wages, Ciavolino Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Giovanni Ciavolino, Hilario Cruz, Jr., and Ronald Leblanc, for themselves and others similarly situated v. INVICTUS INC., SPERE, INC., PHILLIP NOBLIN, and JENNIFER RAMB, Case No. 9:19-cv-81639-RLR (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek for the Defendants by working a total of 144 hours over a consecutive two-week period of time during the training classes they attended. The Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime wages calculated at time and one-half of their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours that they and others similarly situated worked over 40 hours in a given workweek during the training classes given by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs was hired by the Defendants to train to become armed school security guards, or "Guardians," in charter schools in Palm Beach County, Florida, where they would eventually work as armed school security guards or "Guardians." Invictus Inc. is a sui juris Florida for-profit corporation that was authorized to conduct and actually conducted its for-profit security business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 450 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305.230.4884 Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com JOMAR CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Alvarenga Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO ALVARENGA, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. JOMAR CAR WASH CORP., and JOSE PIRES, as an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-06169 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, a resident of Bronx, New York, was employed by the Defendants from November 2011 until January 2019. Jomar Car Wash Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Rego Park, New York. Jose Pires owns and operates Jomar Car Wash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com LANPHERE ENTERPRISES: Knecht Sues Over Unfair Car Sales Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Knecht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC., a domestic corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01991-AC (D. Ore., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its unfair or deceptive motor vehicle pricing and sales practices. When it extends credit to purchasers, Lanphere regularly and systematically violates the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by failing to disclose required information to consumers concerning third-party products that it sells to automobile purchasers, who finance their purchases, the Plaintiff alleges. Motor vehicle retailers are required by law to (a) itemize any third-party products purchased in conjunction with the sale of a vehicle and (b) disclose retention of profits in the sale of these third-party products. Lanphere does not do either, the Plaintiff asserts. By failing to make these required disclosures, the Defendant deprives consumers of informed consent in their purchases of these third-party products. The federal Truth in Lending Act protects consumers by requiring creditors to make certain disclosures in conjunction with the issuance of credit, including in such situations as when the Defendant retains a portion of the proceeds of the sales of third-party products in conjunction with the sale and financing of a motor vehicle, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Kia Sorento from Lanphere's Beaverton Kia dealership. Lanphere is a motor vehicle retailer, which owns and operates five automobile dealerships in Oregon and routinely extends credit to automobile purchasers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young Walgenkim, Esq. HANSON & WALGENKIM, LLC 838 Commercial St NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 383-1496 Fax: (503) 766-6477 Email: young@hansonwalgenkim.com - and - Bonner Walsh, Esq. WALSH LLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Phone: 541.359.2827 Facsimile: 866.503 8206 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 280 Rt. 35, Suite 304 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com LENDUP GLOBAL: Faces Alsuliman Suit Alleging TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- LUCINE ALSULIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENDUP GLOBAL, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-09369-PSG-RAO (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. LendUp Global, INC., is a short term lending Web site. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.7MM Gonzalez-Tzita Deal Gets Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants upon the terms and conditions set forth in his order the Plaintiffs' Third Revised Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement filed in the lawsuit titled LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.). The Court preliminarily (i) certifies the class, as defined in the Corrected Revised Settlement Agreement for purposes of settlement, (ii) appoints Plaintiffs Leonardo Gonzalez-Tzita, Esteban Diego Esteban, and Sidonio Lomeli as class representatives for settlement purposes, (iii) appoints Donald W. Cook, Esq., as class counsel for settlement purposes, and (iv) finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have defined the settlement class as "[a]ny registered vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized and impounded by the City at any time from January 11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under the authority of Cal. Veh. Code Section 21100.4." Pursuant to the settlement, the City will pay a total monetary award of $1,700,000, which will be used to pay class members, attorney's fees and costs, class administration, and incentive payments for the class representatives. The attorney's fees and costs may not exceed $385,000. Class administrative fees are estimated to be $17,058, but any amount over $20,000 will be paid by class counsel. The Plaintiffs estimate the net settlement fund that will be used to pay class members will be $1,260,500. The Court also approves the form, substance, and requirements of the class Notice, the Opt-Out Form, and the Update Form. The proposed manner of notice of the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and complies with the requirements of due process. JND Legal Administration, the Class Administrator, shall complete dissemination of class notice, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, no later than January 17, 2020. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for an award of class representative incentive payments and attorney's fees and costs no later than February 14, 2020, and notice it for hearing for the date of the final approval hearing. Any class member, who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive awards; or (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement must file his or her objection to the settlement or request for exclusion no later than March 17, 2020, in accordance with the Notice. The Plaintiffs shall, no later than April 30, 2020, file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement. The motion shall be noticed for hearing for the date of the final approval hearing. The Defendants may file and serve a memorandum in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement and/or in response to objections no later than May 7, 2020. Any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or through an attorney, to object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs or incentive award, shall, no later than May 12, 2020, file with the court a Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing. A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for May 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service award to the class representative. All proceedings in the Action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the Settlement Agreement or this Order, are stayed pending the final fairness hearing and the Court's decision whether to grant final approval of the settlement, Judge Olguin further rules.[CC] LUCKY BRAND: Issues Inaccurate Wage Statements, Echeverria Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Echeverria, on behalf of himself and on all other similarly situated v. LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES STORES USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LUCKY BRAND STORES USA LLC, an unknown limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV359734 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for issuing inaccurate itemized wage statements, and seeking waiting time 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 issuing improper form of wage payments to him and Class Members, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants. The Defendants are limited liability companies, which have numerous retail stores throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - 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 - 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 LUNA'S RESTAURANT: Illegally Withheld Earned Wages, Flores Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Concepcion Flores, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. LUNA'S RESTAURANT INC. (LUNA'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT) ELVIA LUNA AND IRAIS TELLEZ, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-06886 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2019), seeks to remedy the Defendants' wrongful withholding of the Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation, and failure to comply with notice and record-keeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law The Plaintiff worked anywhere from 47 to 55 hours per week and was paid at a flat fee of $35 per day. The Plaintiff was not paid at an overtime rate of one-and-one-half her regular rate of pay for the overtime hours that she worked nor was she paid at the minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker from November 2016 until end of November 2019. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Astoria, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/ MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Bodor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as JAIMARIA BODOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-05787-EGS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MAXIMUS is an American, outsourcing company that provides business process services to government health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CARY L. FLITTER, ESQ. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101 NARBERTH, PA 19072 Phone: (610) 822-0782 Fax: (610) 667-0552 Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Class Partly Okayed -------------------------------------------- The Hon. David M. Lawson granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class action, to certify issue classes, and set deadlines for submission of proposed notice in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.). According to the Court's Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs' steering committee has identified 39 named individuals from 23 different states asserting a variety of claims on behalf of a putative class against Defendant FCA US LLC (Chrysler) relating to their purchase of one of three models of the Defendant's cars and trucks all equipped with a monostable shifter. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a single nationwide class and either 16 or 23 subclasses (depending on which certification scheme wins approval) under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "But because the main thrust of the economic loss component of this MDL is the recovery of damages, a (b)(2) class cannot be certified," Judge Lawson opines. "And the plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of establishing the predominance of common issues over individual issues in either their multi-state or state-by-state proposals for certification." However, Judge Lawson explains, there are several discrete issues that can be litigated on a collective basis to justify a common-issues class under Rule 23(c)(4). He says those issues will efficiently advance the litigation of this multidistrict case, and, therefore, the Court will certify a common-issues class, granting in part and denying in part the motion for class certification. Judge Lawson concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their proposed national class is certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2). They also come up short on establishing that common issues predominate over individual questions for either state-by-state or cross-state class certification of any of their pleaded causes of action. Nevertheless, there are several common questions that efficiently may be addressed by means of collective litigation. The Court has the discretion under Rule 23(c)(4) to certify those discrete issues for resolution on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, Judge Lawson rules that the motions for class certification are granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' requests to certify their proposed classes and subclasses under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) are denied. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and (c)(4), a class is conditionally certified in this case consisting of all persons or entities who currently own or lease a class vehicle, which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter, where the vehicle was purchased in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming, for determination of these issues: * Whether the monostable gear shift has a design defect that renders the class vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of providing safe transportation; * Whether the defendant knew about the defect and concealed its knowledge from buyers of the class vehicles; and * Whether information about the defect that was concealed would be material to a reasonable buyer. The Plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Consolidated Master Complaint, except for Plaintiffs Guy (Arizona); Wells (Illinois); Vosburgh (Pennsylvania); and Craig, Gillespie, and Waggoner (Texas), are designated as class representatives for their respective jurisdictions. The Court also rules that requests for class certification of any issues or claims pleaded under the laws of Missouri (Counts LV-LVI) and Wisconsin (Counts CXII-CXV) are denied. The requests to designate Plaintiffs Brooks and Hughes as class representatives for any purpose are denied. The lead counsel and the Plaintiffs' steering committee are appointed as class counsel. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer and present to the Court on or before December 23, 2019, a proposal for a notice to class members that complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and a method of delivering the notice to absent class members.[CC] MDL 2797: Final Judgment Entered in Wells Fargo Insurance Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, has entered a final judgment in the case, IN RE WELLS FARGO COLLATERAL PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 8:17-ML-2797-AG-KES (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Judge Guilford held that the Settlement Agreement, the Final Approval Order, and the Judgment are binding on and have res judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed by (1) the Settlement Class Released Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Settlement Class Releasors, and (2) the Wells Fargo and National General Released Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Wells Fargo and National General Releasors. He dismissed with prejudice the action and all claims for damages and, except as otherwise explicitly provided for in the Settlement Agreement, without costs. The Settlement Class Releasees are discharged and released from all the Settlement Class Released Claims. The Wells Fargo and National General Releasees are discharged and released from the Wells Fargo and National General Released Claims. The Settlement Class Releasors and/or any other Person are permanently barred and enjoined from instituting and prosecuting any and all of the Settlement Class Released Claims. Wells Fargo and National General Releasors and/or any other Person are permanently barred and enjoined from instituting and prosecuting any and all of the Wells Fargo and National General Released Claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/klPfRe from Leagle.com. Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs & Adriana Avila, Plaintiffs, represented by Roland K. Tellis -- info@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin -- ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims -- ssims@lawfss.com -- Frank Sims and Stolper LLP. Brian Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain, Rosman and Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Peter A. Muhic, LEVAN LAW GROUP, LLC, pro hac vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Benjamin Steinberg, Robins Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Michael L. Schrag, Gibbs Law Group & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP. Charles Heiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Misty Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Blaine Boone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Germain, Rosman and Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP. Dianne Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Robert Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Germain, Rosman and Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Macy D. Hanson, The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson PLLC, pro hac vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP. Mitchell Headline, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael R. Cashman, Hellmuth and Johnson PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP. Wells Fargo and Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by David C. Powell -- dpowell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Aaron Robert Marienthal -- amarienthal@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Carolee A. Hoover -- choover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Joshua D. Davey, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice & William C. Mayberry -- bmayberry@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice. Wells Fargo Bank NA, doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., A. South Dakota Corporation & Wells Fargo Bank NA, a South Dakota Corporation doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Carolee A. Hoover, McGuireWoods LLP, David C. Powell, McGuireWoods LLP, Jason D. Evans, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Davey, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice & William C. Mayberry, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice. National General Insurance Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to GMAC Insurance, A. North Carolina Corporation & National General Holdings Corp, Defendants, represented by Jane M. Byrne, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP & Richard Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice. National General Insurance Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Balboa Insurance Company & National General Insurance Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to GMAC Insurance and QBE Insurance, Defendants, represented by Richard Corey Worcester, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice. Balboa Insurance Company, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard Corey Worcester, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Ryder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Ryder moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint titled JENNY RYDER, Individually and as successor in interest to ANGELINE KOSTMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHANTS' CREDIT GUIDE COMPANY and COLONY BRANDS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01807-JPS (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 avers. 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 asserts. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Denise L. Morris, 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 dmorris@ademilaw.com MERCON CONTRACTING: Arriaga Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Arriaga, Leopoldo Maldonado and Raul Simbana individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mercon Contracting Corp. (d/b/a Mercon) and Serge Pisman, Case No. 1:19-cv-06887 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, seeking to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages for the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that they regularly work for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants, who were ostensibly employed as Plumbers and Assistants to Plumbers. The Defendants operate a construction contracting company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/ METHUEN, MA: Pimentel's Bid to Certify Class of Arrestees Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA PIMENTEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF METHUEN, et al., Defendants, and JONATHAN W. BLODGETT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR ESSEX COUNTY, in his official capacity, Necessary Party, Case No. 1:17-cv-11921-FDS (D. Mass.). The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging civil rights violations due to the use of an incorrect Spanish-language advice-of-rights form by the Methuen Police. Plaintiff Patricia Pimentel was arrested for drunk driving on October 21, 2014. After she was arrested, she was given an advice-of-rights form in Spanish, her native language, which incorrectly stated her rights. Specifically, the form contained errors about the legal blood alcohol content level under Massachusetts law; the admissibility and significance of the results of a breathalyzer test; and the consequences of refusing such a test. She consented to a breathalyzer test and was prosecuted for operating under the influence of liquor ("OUI"). Ms. Pimentel sued the City of Methuen and state officials under federal and Massachusetts law, alleging multiple violations of her rights under the United States Constitution, federal and state civil rights acts, and state common law. She has now moved to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The putative class consists of "all Spanish-speaking Hispanic persons who have been arrested by the Methuen Police Department and prosecuted for OUI matters after receiving the unlawfully coercive Spanish advice of rights form." She seeks to certify a liability-only class, with individual damages trials to follow. In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Saylor wrote that the City's use of an incorrect Spanish-speaking language form--indeed, using it for many years after the mistakes in it were first brought to the City's attention--is troublesome, to say the least. Nonetheless, he opines, the requirements of Rule 23 have not been satisfied, and class treatment of the claims is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion is denied. Among other things, Judge Saylor opines that the Plaintiff has not carried her burden to establish commonality under Rule 23(a) because her issues are not likely to be common to all class members.[CC] MICHAEL KORS: Hamilton Employee Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled Jason Hamilton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA), INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV37061, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 6, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10387 to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: (1) Failure To Pay Overtime; (2) Failure To Pay Due Wages At Termination; (3) Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (4) Failure To Reimburse Expenses; (5) Violation of Labor Code Section 1198.5; (6) Violation of Labor Code Section 226(c); and (7) Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com elevy@seyfarth.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Wensley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Wensley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06883 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Griesch Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Griesch, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NEXTGEN LEADS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02342-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection. The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's prior express consent to place automated text messages to her on her cellular telephone, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the State of California. NextGen is a lead generation company that sells consumers' information to insurance companies so that they can market to those consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. 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: ak@kazlg.com yana@kazlg.com NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kanahaiya Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Fnu Alok Kanahaiya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06904 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- Jaline Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY INSTITUTE, PLLC, Case No. 19-CIV-62290-RAR (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), arises from the Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's telemarketing consists of sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase goods and/or services. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant offers rehabilitation services, including Platelet-Rich-Plasma and Adult Mesenchymal Stem cell therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.533.4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com OVINNET INC: Akhramenko Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Akhramenko, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. OVINNET, INC., a Florida Corporation f/k/a OVERSEAS TRAVEL OF FLORIDA, INC., OVERSEAS TRAVEL OF FLORIDA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, all doing business as OVERSEAS LEISURE GROUP, and FELIX BRAMBILLA, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-25027-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants while performing non-exempt primary duties for the benefit of the Defendants. However, the Defendants have failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Travel Agents, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a Travel Agent in April 2019. The Defendants owned and operated a travel agency business providing travel services to individuals and businesses throughout the United States and other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Overarching Conspiracy Allegation Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the Court has denied the defendants' joint motions to dismiss overarching conspiracy allegations in the class action suit entitled, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724. The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions alleging that the company and other manufacturers of the same product engaged in anti-competitive behavior to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs and/or allocate customers starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The same class plaintiffs have filed complaints naming the company as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers, alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15 generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011. Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin cream and Nystatin ointment. The company has also been named a co-defendant along with 35 other manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. The only allegations specific to the company relates to Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. On August 3, 2018, a large managed care organization filed a complaint against the company alleging price-fixing and customer allocation concerning 17 different products among 27 manufacturers including Perrigo. The only allegations specific to the company concerns Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. On January 16, 2019, a similar suit was brought by a health insurance carrier in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of 30 products among 30 defendants. The only allegations specific to the company concerns Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. Certain complaints listed above were amended in December 2017, January 2018, and April 2019. All of the above complaints have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings, along with complaints filed against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more than two dozen other drugs, as part of a case captioned In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the court's schedule staging various cases in phases, the company moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol and Econazole. The court issued a decision denying the motions in part in October 2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019 dismissing various state law claims, but allowing other state law claims to proceed. The company filed answers to the Clobetasol gel complaints on December 31, 2018. The company filed answers to the Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019. Motions to dismiss certain other complaints listed above were filed on February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs' oppositions were due on May 2, 2019 and defendants’ replies were filed on June 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the Defendants' joint motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy allegations. Certain deposition discovery is allowed to proceed as of the Court's July 15, 2019 order in all cases and documentary discovery is also proceeding. On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons in Pennsylvania state court to commence an action against 53 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and 17 individuals, alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. While Perrigo was named as a defendant, no complaint has been filed. A stipulation is currently being drafted to defer further action pending developments in the Generics Antitrust MDL described above. Perrigo said, "At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the liability, if any, associated with these claims." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Stay in Baton Class Suit Extended Until Feb. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that court in Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al., extended the stay of the case to February 10, 2020. On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court. This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. The company filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019. The defendants updated the court and sought a further extension of the stay, which was unopposed. The court extended the stay to February 10, 2020. Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PLOMO LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Javier A. Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v. PLOMO, LLC a/k/a PLOMO TEQUILA & TACO BAR, IOANNIS SOTIROPOULOS, and EFTHYMIOS PALIOURAS, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-25040-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for half-time unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours weekly and was unable to take bonafide lunchtime periods. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook. The Defendant is a retail business operating as a Mexican restaurant and bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com POWER FUNDING: Faces Abante TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWER FUNDING LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07186 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019), accuses the Defendant of contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Abante Rooter is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville, California. Power Funding LLC is an entity in the business finance services industry. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com PRICE CHOPPER: Sued by Fore-Heron for Mislabeling Almond Milk ------------------------------------------------------------- Constance Fore-Heron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Price Chopper, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-11224 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on their vanilla almond milk products' packaging. The Product's front label and advertising makes direct representations with respect to its primary recognizable and characterizing flavor by the word Vanilla. In the context of vanilla, vanillin has always been an "artificial flavor" regardless of it is labeled "natural vanillin." The front label of a product with added vanillin is required to disclose this material fact by the designation "Artificially Flavored Vanilla Almondmilk." The Defendant's Product is misleading because it is represented as identical to another product, which contains more, and a greater percentage, of the valuable ingredients, which causes consumers to be misled, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that the representations are misleading because the Product does not contain the amount, type and/or percentage of vanilla as a component of its flavoring, which is required by law and consistent with consumer expectations. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Product contains other representations, which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price of approximately $4.49 per 64 FL OZ, excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use and consumption. The Price Chopper, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by and containing flavor only from vanilla under their brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com QRS LLC: Bradford Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian H. Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QRS, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-02364 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2019), is seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week, but they do not receive proper overtime pay for these hours. Instead of paying them overtime in accordance with California and federal law, the Defendant pays these workers the same hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Moreover, instead of paying the Plaintiff overtime in accordance with California law, the Defendant pays him and other workers the same hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 in a workweek or within seven consecutive days, says the complaint. Brian H. Bradford works for the Defendant as a Technologist. QRS is a staffing company and provides workers in various industries to its clientele.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Phone: 713 999 5228 Fax: 713 999 1187 Email: matt@parmet.law RTA CABINET: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D Pa. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTA CABINET STORE, LLC. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. RTA CABINET STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05756-CMR (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. RTA Cabinet Store is a retail startup that specializes in customizing and selling of kitchen cabinets online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109 Phone: (215) 981-5400 Email: dglanzberg@aol.com SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ragis Fraud Class Suit in Vermont ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. The case is styled as Eric Ragis, Lisa Ragis, Ronald Ragis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00231-wks (D. Vt., Dec. 9, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Bredice , Esq. Law Office of Steven A. Bredice 17 GW Tatro Drive P.O. Box 519 Jeffersonville, VT 05464-0519 Phone: (802) 644-6610 Fax: (802) 644-2920 Email: sbredice@poblaw.net SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Salvador Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Gonzalez Salvador, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR & GRILL INC. and EDWARD MIGLIACCIO, Case No. 2:19-cv-06877 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), is seeking equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA, says the complaint. This policy and pattern or practice includes, inter alia, failing to compensate employees with minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer and dishwasher from September 2010 until June 21, 2019. Shooter's Tiki Bar is a sports bar and grill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Morales, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 460-0047 Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com SISYPHIAN LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers Under FLSA, Doe Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe aka Athena, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SISYPHIAN, LLC dba XPOSED GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, a California Limited Liability Company; BRAD BARNES, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10414 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019), accuses the Defendants of evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff contends that she was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Defendants also required the Plaintiff to share her tips with the Defendants and other non-service employees, who do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers. As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2011 through 2017. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at Canoga Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Cortese, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC. and SKANSKA USA INC, Case No. 1:19-cv-11189 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Orders to recover wages and benefits. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are statutorily and contractually entitled to receive these wages and benefits for work they performed on the public works project, which the Defendants contracted with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the George Washington Bridge rehabilitation and upgrade project. Despite working in the New York City jurisdiction of the Project for the first three weeks, the Plaintiff says he was only paid the statutory New Jersey prevailing wage rate for his work within the New York City territory rather than the New York City prevailing wage for crane operators, as required by NYLL. Upon discovering that he was not being paid the New York City prevailing wage for his work performed on the New York side of the GWB span, the Plaintiff complained to both Michael McCue, the Defendants' agent, representative and/or employee, and Eric Gallowitz of Ruzow & Associates, Inc., the third-party payroll administrator and liaison for the PANY. Following his complaint to the Defendants regarding their failure to pay Plaintiff his statutorily entitled NYC Prevailing Wage, the Defendants unlawfully retaliated against him by ostracizing him and relegating him to exclusively operating the hoist located on the New Jersey side of the GWB span, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the Defendants' retaliation, Plaintiff has been intentionally deprived of sharing overtime work with two other New York union crane operators, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a crane operator on the Project. The Defendants are full-service construction contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Kasolas, Esq. BRACH EICHLER LLC 101 Eisenhower Pkwy. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 403-3139 Facsimile: (973) 618-5539 E-mail: bkasolas@bracheichler.com SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Employees Class Certified in Huddleston Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Matthew F. Leitman grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit styled JERRY HUDDLESTON, III v. SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-12364-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich.). The Court conditionally certifies a collective of all current and former hourly employees who worked for Sloan Environmental Services, Inc. at any time in the past three years. The Court appoints Mr. Huddleston's counsel, Jesse L. Young, Esq., Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq., and the law firm of Kreis Enderle, P.C., as counsel for the collective. The Court approves Mr. Huddleston's proposed form of notice and authorizes him to disseminate that notice to each member of the collective by mail and e-mail; Judge Leitman directs Sloan to produce to Mr. Huddleston the names, last known phone numbers, last known addresses, and last known e-mail addresses of all proposed collective members in a computer-readable format by December 30, 2019. Members of the proposed collective shall have 45 days from the date the notice is mailed to join this action if they so choose. In this putative collective action, Plaintiff Jerry Huddleston, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, alleges that Defendants Sloan Environmental Services, Inc. and Eric Sloan willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 when Sloan failed to pay required overtime.[CC] SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Manual Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abram McDonald, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Specialty Parking, L.L.C., Case No. 718511/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime and minimum wages, under the New York Labor Law. Specialty Parking, L.L.C., was a for-profit Limited liability company, which operated at several locations including at 135-30 140th Street, in Jamaica, New York, where the Plaintiff was employed as a manual worker until July 9, 2019. The Defendant was engaged in the business of operating parking garage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS: Fails to Protect PII and PHI, Condon Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristine Condon, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS OF ILLINOIS, LLC, f/k/a WELLGROUP HEALTHPARTNERS, LLC; FRANCISCAN PHYSICIAN NETWORK OF ILLINOIS; FRANSCISCAN HEAL TH, INC.; and FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2019CH14111 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. On December 8, 2017, SPI notified the Plaintiff and 22,000 other patients of a data breach involving her "patient payment records" containing personal and private financial information. The Plaintiff discovered that SPI was negligent by violating its duty to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's PII and PHI. As a direct and/or proximate result of the Defendants' failure to secure and protect the Plaintiff's PII and PHI, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of improper disclosure of PII and PHI; loss of privacy; out-of-pocket expenses incurred to mitigate the increased risk of identity theft and/or identify fraud press upon her by the Data Breach; the value of her time spent mitigating identify theft and/or identify fraud and/or the increased risk of identity theft and/or identity fraud; deprivation of the value of her PII and PHI, for which there is a well-established national and international market; and anxiety and emotional distress--for which she is entitled compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois and lives in Homewood, Cook County, Illinois. SPI owned, operated, managed and maintained a storage facility located at Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William T. Gibbs, Esq. CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C. 33 North Dearborn Street, 21st Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 346-3191 Email: ccfiling@corboydemetrio.com SRA ASSOCIATES: Zarczynski Moves for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- Ann Zarczynski moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SRA ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01799-JPS (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 contends. 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 says. 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 SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Seeks to Certify 3 Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled NANCY SCHLIESER, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-00443-JAK-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, asks the Court to certify this class: * Regular Rate Class A - Stipulated by the Plaintiff and Defendant: All persons who were employed in the positions of Director of Sales and Associate Director of Sales in California from July 1, 2016 through the present and who did not execute a Sunrise Senior Living Dispute Resolution Agreement. Certification of the Regular Rate Class A is sought pursuant to stipulation by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the Plaintiff's causes of action for: (1) failure to properly include certain commission payments within employees' regular rate of pay for purpose of calculating overtime wages, (2) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (3) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (4) unfair and unlawful business practices. Ms. Schlieser also asks the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not subject to the stipulation of the parties, to certify these classes: * Regular Rate Class B: All persons who work or worked for Defendant in the positions of Director of Sales, Associate Director of Sales, and Director of Sales & Marketing in California from July 1, 2016 through the present. Certification of this class is for the Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for failure to pay overtime; Fifth Cause of Action for failure to pay wages upon discharge; Sixth Cause of Action for failure to maintain required records; Seventh Cause of Action for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and Ninth Cause of Action for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq; and * Regular Rate Class C: All persons who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly employees of Defendant at one or more of its locations in California at any time from July 1, 2016 through the present who were paid Incentive Pay which was earned during one or more pay periods in which they were also paid overtime wages. Incentive Pay means pay pursuant to the following plans and policies: Spot Bonuses; Director of Sales Commission & Incentive Plan; Director of Sales Commission & Bonus Plan --Pre-Open Assisted Living (AL)/Reminiscence (REM); All Hands on Deck (Sales Support Bonus); Department Coordinator Plan; Sign On Bonus; Retention Bonus; Team Member Referral Bonus; Resident Referral Bonus Program aka "Friends and Family Program,"; Healthy Living Incentive; Incentive Based Bonus; Race to the Finish Bonus; and Shift and Schedule Incentive. Certification of this class is for the Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for failure to pay overtime; Fifth Cause of Action for failure to pay wages upon discharge; Sixth Cause of Action for failure to maintain required records; Seventh Cause of Action for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and Ninth Cause of Action for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court appoint her as representative for the proposed classes, and appoint Matern Law Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Esq., Dalia Khalili, Esq., and Scott A. Brooks, Esq., as Class Counsel for the proposed classes. The Court will commence a hearing on March 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia Khalili, Esq. Scott A. Brooks, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com TENNESSEE: Atkins Brings Appeals to 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gregory Atkins, Christopher Gooch, Kevin Proffitt and Thomas Rollins, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Charles Graham, a/k/a Charles Stevenson, and Russell L. Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tony C. Parker, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01954, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. The appellate case is captioned as Gregory Atkins, et al. v. Tony Parker, et al., Case No. 19-6243, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants Doctor Marina Cadreche, Tony Parker and Doctor Kenneth Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled In re: Tony Parker, et al., Case No. 17-506. The civil rights lawsuit is brought against Tony Parker, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, and other Officers of the Department. The Tennessee Department of Correction is a Cabinet-level agency within the Tennessee state government responsible for the oversight of more than 20,000 convicted offenders in Tennessee.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GREGORY ATKINS, CHRISTOPHER GOOCH, KEVIN PROFFITT and THOMAS ROLLINS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Joseph Wall, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: michaelw@bsjfirm.com Defendants-Appellees DR. KENNETH WILLIAMS, Medical Director, Tennessee Department of Corrections, in their official capacities, and TONY PARKER, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Corrections, are represented by: Pamela Sue Lorch, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202-0207 Telephone: (615) 532-2549 E-mail: pam.lorch@state.tn.us TICKET LIQUIDATOR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ticket Liquidator, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ticket Liquidator, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11204 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ticket Liquidator is an online marketplace for live entertainment tickets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com TRIAD CATALOG: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRIAD CATALOG CO., L.L.C. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. TRIAD CATALOG CO., L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05758-AB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Triad Catalog Co., L.L.C., doing business as Soft Surroundings, operates as a multi-channel retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109 Phone: (215) 981-5400 Email: dglanzberg@aol.com TRUE DIALOG: Silvera Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Dialog, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Silvera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. True Dialog, Inc. also known as: 3seventy, Inc. a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01189-RP (W.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. TrueDialog is a text service provider delivering dialog text messages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Ave, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Peters Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The case is styled as Nikirah Peters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp., LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-02322 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com TRULIEVE INC: Faces Jaslow Suit Over Marketing That Violates TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mats Jaslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00592-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. The Defendant is a Florida licensed medical cannabis provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com UNITED STATES: Azar Appeals Order in Philbrick Suit --------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alex M. Azar, II, et al., filed an appeal seeking review of a decision by the District Court in the lawsuit entitled Samuel Philbrick, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00773-JEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Samuel Philbrick, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No. 19-5293, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit challenges the ongoing efforts of the Executive Branch to bypass the legislative process and act unilaterally to fundamentally transform Medicaid, a cornerstone of the social safety net. The Medicaid Act establishes a health insurance program that provides coverage to more than 75 million people in the United States. Medicaid enables states to provide a range of federally specified preventive, acute, and long-term health care services to individuals "whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services". The Social Security Act, of which the Medicaid Act is a part, does permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive certain federal Medicaid requirements, but only in narrow circumstances--when necessary to allow a state to carry out an experimental or pilot program that is likely to promote the objectives of the Medicaid Act. New Hampshire obtained such a waiver to change the way that the State provided coverage to the Medicaid expansion population group. While this request was pending, HHS announced a new Medicaid waiver policy in a January 2018 letter to State Medicaid Directors. On May 7, 2018, citing the State Medicaid Letter, the Secretary approved the NHHPP Premium Assistance Program Amendment, adding work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. The complaint asserts that the approved waiver will harm the Plaintiffs and individuals throughout the State who need a range of health services, including check-ups, mental health services, insomnia treatments, vision services, surgeries, and medications. Without access to Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs will be forced to forgo treatment for their conditions or will incur significant medical debt when their conditions become so severe that they have no choice but to seek treatment in acute care and emergency department settings. Without retroactive coverage, when Plaintiffs experience gaps in coverage, they will be forced to skip medical treatment or incur out of pocket expenses and medical debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are enrolled in the New Hampshire Medicaid program. Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is sued in his official capacity.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Samuel Philbrick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Ian Ludders, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Karin Vlk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and Joshua Vlk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Catherine A. McKee, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 200 North Greensboro Street, Suite D-13 Carrboro, NC 27510 Telephone: (919) 968-6308 E-mail: mckee@healthlaw.org Defendants-Appellants Alex M. Azar, II, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 Intervenor for Defendant-Appellee New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services is represented by: Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 Telephone: (603) 271-3658 E-mail: anthony.galdieri@doj.nh.gov VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Files ADA Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vineyard Vines, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11228 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vineyard Vines, LLC designs, manufactures, and retails apparel and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that company continues to defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, in Minnesota. A putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality experience improved, the policy language required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the policyholders, and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018). A putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Zarczynski moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WEBCOLLEX LLC d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL, Case No. 2:19-cv-01803-NJ (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 avers. 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 asserts. 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 WILLIAMS TANK: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WILLIAMS TANK LINES. The case is styled as Douglas Vasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS TANK LINES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 9, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Williams Tanks Lines delivers petroleum products from pipeline storage tanks and refineries to trucking companies, airports and gasoline stations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by ROMAN SHKODNIK, ESQ. X FINANCIAL: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Xiangdong Chen, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. X FINANCIAL, YUE TANG, JIE ZHANG, SHAOYONG CHENG, DING GAO, SHENGWEN RONG, ZHENG XUE, LONGGEN ZHANG, RICHARD ARTHUR, COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-06908 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired X Financial American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 19, 2018 initial public offering seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. On August 28, 2018, X Financial filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on September 18, 2018. The next day, the Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public more than 11.7 million X Financial ADSs (including the exercise of the underwriters' overallotment option) at $9.50 per ADS. The Defendants generated more than $111 million in gross offering proceeds from their sale of X Financial ADSs in the IPO. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's total loan facilitation amount was not growing, but rather was contracting; the number of investors actively using X Financial's platform was shrinking; demand from SMEs for the Company's preferred loans was plummeting; and more. On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS. This price represented an 81.68% decline from the $9.50 per share price at which X Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing public in the IPO. As of the date this complaint was filed, X Financial's ADSs continue to trade below the $9.50 per share IPO price. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of X Financial's share price, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired X Financial ADSs at artificially inflated prices pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. X Financial is a finance technology company based in Shenzhen, China. The Company operates a peer-to-peer platform that matches borrowers and lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com XPO PORT SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in Arrellano Suit Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. S. James Otero entered an order in the lawsuit captioned VICTOR CORTEZ ARRELLANO, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL UNNAMED PLAINTIFFS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. XPO PORT SERVICE INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-08220-SJO-E (C.D. Cal.), ruling that: -- the Arrellano Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Motion for Class Certification; -- the Arrellano Plaintiffs may file their Fourth Amended Complaint, in the form attached to the Parties' Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Class Certification Motion and Filing of an Amended Complaint, by December 10, 2019, and that the Defendants may file their responsive pleading to the Arrellano Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint by January 7, 2020; and -- the Parties, including the Alvarez Plaintiffs and Arrellano Plaintiffs, shall file joint proposed Class Certification briefing schedules by January 7, 2020. The lawsuit is consolidated with Case Nos. 2:18-cv-03736-SJO-E, 2:18-cv-06175-SJO-E and 2:18-cv-09144-SJO-E.[CC] Defendants XPO Port Services Inc., XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC, XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC, and XPO Logistics, Inc., are represented by: Scott Voelz, Esq. Alexander J. Larro, Esq. Christianna Kyriacou Mantas, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: svoelz@omm.com alarro@omm.com ckyriacou@omm.com ZUMIEZ INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zumiez Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zumiez Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11186 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zumiez Inc. is an American multinational specialty clothing store founded by Tom Campion and Gary Haakenson in 1978, and publicly traded since 2005. The company is a specialty retailer of apparel, footwear, accessories and hardgoods for young men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims Still Pending at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that there are 6,461 unresolved asbestos claims related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business at September 30, 2019. The Company also reported that within the nine months ended September 30, 2019, there were 1,996 new claims filed and 1,744 claims resolved. As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the "Spin-Off"). The Company states, "For the periods prior to the Spin-Off, these Consolidated and Combined Interim Financial Statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending and future asbestos-related and environmental liabilities primarily related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business, calculated as if we were responsible for 100% of the Bendix asbestos-liability payments. However, this recognition model differs from the recognition model applied subsequent to the Spin-Off. In periods subsequent to the Spin-Off, the accounting for the majority of our asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable reflect the terms of the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell entered into on September 12, 2018, under which we are required to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with such liabilities. The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048 or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the terms of the agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Yi1C84 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,500 Claims at September 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that approximately 46,500 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending as of September 29, 2019, in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. As of September 29, 2019, approximately 46,500 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8FPkzt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $213.0MM Liability Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$212,953,000 reserve at September 30, 2019, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time. In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052. The methodology used by Nathan in its projection in 2018 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors: * interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; * analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims history from January 1, 2016, to August 19, 2018; * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction where the claim is filed; * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2016, to August 19, 2018, to determine the average settlement value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation. "Using this information, Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its Asbestos Liability. In developing the estimate, the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability. Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052. "The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was US$227,922,000. The reserve at September 30, 2019, was US$212,953,000. Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs. "The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$141,032,000 at September 30, 2019)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/TtiZPm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,701 Claims at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,701 asbestos-related claims pending at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Air & Liquid"), and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. "Included as "open claims" are approximately 729 and 678 claims in 2019 and 2018, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL. "A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/TtiZPm ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Morse TEC Has $0.8BB A&E Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that BorgWarner Morse TEC ("Morse TEC") holds approximately US$0.8 billion in liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims and environmental claims arising from BorgWarner Inc.'s legacy manufacturing operations. The Company states, "On October 30, 2019, we completed the acquisition of BorgWarner Morse TEC ("Morse TEC") from BorgWarner Inc ("BorgWarner") through our subsidiary, Enstar Holdings (US) LLC. Morse TEC holds approximately US$0.8 billion in liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims and environmental claims arising from BorgWarner's legacy manufacturing operations. We will disclose further information on this transaction in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8uTiWB ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,030 Claims Pending at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had approximately 31,030 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with turbines. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of September 30, 2019, the Company had pending approximately 31,030 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 31,570 as of December 31, 2018 and 31,500 as of September 30, 2018. During the third quarter of 2019, the Company received approximately 850 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 1,940 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2018 and 2017 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$45 million and US$57 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. "Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur, including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/khWSZo ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/SfFBN6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air Canada Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it could be required to pay substantial damages for asbestos claims involving its Canadian subsidiaries, although the possibility is remote. The Company states, "In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI4-1-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Grace and W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. were also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI5-1-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. "In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. "In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order was renewed repeatedly. "In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Confirmation Orders with respect to the Plan were entered by the Bankruptcy Court on January 31, 2011 and February 15, 2011 and the District Court on January 30, 2012 and on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms. "The Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In accordance with the December 13, 2009 order of the Canadian court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed until they were amended to remove the Grace parties as named defendants. The actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19, 2014. The remaining actions were either dismissed or discontinued with prejudice by the Canadian courts as against the Grace parties in May and June 2015, but for two actions in the Province of Quebec, which were discontinued by order of the Quebec court in February 2016. Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6uuzxr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.9MM Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$4,914,000 asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. "Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from December 31, 2018. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates US$4,914,000, which is included in the accrued general and product liability costs in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2019. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. "The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company has engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred. When the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered. The Company received settlement payments of US$0 and US$120,000 during the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and US$290,000 and US$129,000 during the six months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, net of legal fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for asbestos-related expenses. These partial payments have been recorded as a reduction of cost of products sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The Company is continuing its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future costs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/kGbIJp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $13MM Verdict against Hillshire -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019, that the appellate court has affirmed the trial court's US$13 million verdict in an asbestos-related case against a subsidiary. The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May 2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California. Mr. Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now deceased. Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez's alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant in Betteravia, California. The plant, which was sold in 1986, was owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The Hillshire Brands Company. "In August 2017, the jury returned a verdict of approximately US$13 million in favor of the plaintiffs, and a judgment was entered. We appealed the judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in full." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/FWgPaL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Mesothelioma Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. still defends itself against lawsuits related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019. The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374, styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2. "All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by us. Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. "In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all remaining defendants. "In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson, Deceased vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without prejudice. "In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was dismissed without prejudice." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/uoHdO3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 161 Claims at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 161 asserted claims related to asbestos exposure as of September 30, 2019, according to Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2019, there were 121 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$32 million, and 40 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$13 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/1DMuuC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $592MM Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves of US$592 million at September 30, 2019, according to Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of US$592 million at September 30, 2019, and US$630 million at December 31, 2018. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2038 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2038 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. "Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$747 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$722 million at September 30, 2019, and US$739 million at December 31, 2018. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/1DMuuC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes $0.5BB Reserves for Zurich ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it assumed approximately US$0.5 billion of gross reserves related to reinsurance of certain of Zurich Insurance Group s U.S. asbestos and environmental liability insurance portfolios. The Company states, "On October 1, 2019, we completed the previously announced reinsurance transaction with Zurich Insurance Group ("Zurich"), pursuant to which we reinsured certain of Zurich's U.S. asbestos and environmental liability insurance portfolios. In the transaction, we assumed approximately US$0.5 billion of gross reserves, relating to 1986 and prior year business." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8uTiWB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $245.8MM Liability at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited recorded Direct Asbestos Liabilities of US$245,787,000 as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We acquired DCo LLC ("DCo") on December 30, 2016. DCo continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately managed. "Other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets include amounts for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims, determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related exposures. Other liabilities also include amounts for environmental liabilities associated with DCo's properties. "Other assets on our consolidated balance sheets include estimated insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in full." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8uTiWB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $233MM Loss Reserves at September 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of $233.0 million, or 96.4%, of total net A&E reserves, at September 30, 2019, all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company. Concurrently with the closing, we entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater. Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been reinsured by Bermuda Re. As consideration for entering into the retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3 million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing date. Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded, US$100.5 million were related to A&E business. The maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3 million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million. We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty. "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. "Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.6 years at September 30, 2019. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/atXKfQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $37MM to Honeywell in 3Q 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it paid Honeywell International Inc. the Euro-equivalent of US$37 million in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement during the three months ended September 30, 2019. In the nine months ended September 30, 2019, the Company paid the Euro-equivalent of US$113 million. As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the "Spin-Off"). The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix friction materials ("Bendix") business. The Bendix business manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. Certain operations that were part of the Bendix business were transferred to Garrett. "In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into an Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on September 12, 2018. As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175 million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given calendar year. The payments that we are required to make to Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. "The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048 or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the terms of the agreement. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, we paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$37 million and US$113 million, respectively, in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Yi1C84 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the costs to resolve asbestos-related cases during the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/KO45aJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation still defends itself against asbestos lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. "Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. "Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. "However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. "The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ZWzhXW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $805,000 Liability at September 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded approximately US$805,000 for asbestos-related liability as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired but which are no longer owned. During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims, Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Based on actuarial information, the asbestos-related liability including legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$805,000 which has been reflected as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/kGbIJp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it has been named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits. Manitex states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6rSUnp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 113 Suits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is still a co-defendant in approximately 113 asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 113 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 217 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages; one count at US$1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2n4aYP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at Sept. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. still defends itself against a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019. The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries. "There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8FPkzt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain cases involving multiple defendants. The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses. However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our Consolidated Financial Statements. Certain cases, including cases that were scheduled in March 2019, were settled without any material impact in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fgsfsD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that "currently there are a few thousand claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. "Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/JV2zYJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Remains in Parsons Class Suit vs. Liggett --------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the asbestos-related class action case Parsons v. AC & S Inc., which subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is still a defendant, is still stayed. The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The operative complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class. The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/InB8tg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through September 30, 2019. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than US$3,000. There remained approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2019. "BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of both September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. "There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fL3okb ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $77.8MM Libby Costs at September 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$77.8 million at September 30, 2019, for response costs related to a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculite concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other products. Some of the vermiculite ore contained naturally occurring asbestos. "Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") and other federal, state, and local governmental agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as Operable Unit 3 ("OU3"). The RI/FS will determine the specific areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible remedial action alternatives. Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal, containment projects, or other protective measures. "As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3. Based on this work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the 2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3. Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. "The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of several components, each of which may vary significantly as the remedial alternatives are further developed. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between US$30 million and US$170 million. Grace is working closely with the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA after the RI/FS is finalized. Such remedy will be set forth in a Record of Decision ("ROD") that is expected to be issued by the EPA during 2021. Costs associated with the more active remedial alternatives would be expected to be incurred over a decade or more. Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as remedial alternatives evolve based on further work by the engineering and consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the RI/FS process moves toward a ROD. Depending on the remedial alternatives that the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of remediating OU3 may exceed Grace's current estimate by material amounts. "The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished products. Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these investigation and remediation activities and has recorded a liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable. These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and, to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is necessary, the estimated cost of response actions. Response actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and replacement with clean fill. The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge of prior and current operations and site conditions, that liability for remediation at such other sites is probable. "Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are currently estimable for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at September 30, 2019, and December 31, 2018, was US$77.8 million and US$81.7 million, respectively. It is possible that Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed current estimates by material amounts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/malKcC ********* 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 ***