/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 21 Headlines ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class of Inmates Certified in Babu Suit ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Morris Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class ALLERGAN INC: Faces Newman Product Liability Suit in Pennsylvania ALLERGAN PLC: Resolves Antitrust Class Action AMBER ELEVATOR: Laureano-Capellan Sues Over Unlawful Deductions ANIES BASWEDAN: Jakarta Citizens to Launch Class Action APOGEE EVENTS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York AVIS BUDGET: Hazzard Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA BAOZUN INC: Faces Aus Suit over 17% Drop in Share Price BAOZUN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline BARNEY GREENGRASS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York BAZ BAGEL: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York BEACHWAY OPERATING: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA BEAN TREE CORP: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York BIG TOP: Pizano Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees BLUE NOTE USA: Bishop Files Suit under ADA in New York BROCKTON, MA: Pays $4.7MM Settlement Over Discrimination Claims CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CELERITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Breach CHERRY HILL SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Gender-Bias Programs CHINO HILLS, CA: Named in Lawsuit for Not Submitting Water Reports CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Knox Files Suit in California D&A SERVICES: Saks Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York DADDY COOL'S INC: Underpays Bartenders, Alvarado et al. Say DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Handley Suit Over Injuries From Omlesartan DIGNITY HEALTH: Green Files Suit in California DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Costa Seeks to Certify Class of Patients DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn Renews Bid to Certify Employees Class E CAPITAL FUNDING: Foo Suit Alleges Discrimination Over Pregnancy FEDERAL TAX RELIEF: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy FIAT CHRYSLER: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in Chassen Suit FLRISH INC: Calhoun Sues Over Unwanted Autodialed Marketing Texts FMS ADVANCE: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy FOODSTATE INC: Judge to Consider $2.1MM Class Action Settlement FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Class Action GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Espinosa Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California GRIMM ALES LLC: Bishop Files Suit Under ADA in New York GRUBHUB INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit GS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dobie Suit Says HALO VEHICLE: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in Alabama HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Briscoe's Bid to Certify Class Denied HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Flagg-El's Bid for Class Certification Denied HTDG LLC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Gender Discrimination IBM CORP: Janecyk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data INNOVATIVE MARKETING: Fabricant Sues Over Invasion of Privacy INSTRUCTURE INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Potential Claims INSTRUCTURE INC: Investors Challenge Merger with PIV Purchaser INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits over Security Issues Ongoing INTERO REAL: Chinitz Seeks Certification of 4 Classes in TCPA Suit INTUIT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site J.E.R.P. LLC: Jones Sues Over Violation of Due Process of Law JA APPAREL CORP: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille JONES DAY: Certification of Equal Pay Collective Action Sought KNIGHTEN MACHINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Claims KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Certification Sought in Hawkins Suit LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Cruz Says LEADS2RESULTS INC: Abante Rooter Sues Alleging Violation of TCPA LENDABIZ CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy LLOYDS BANK: Collas Crill Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling MAURICE AND PAUL: Moffitt Sues Over Sudden Closing of Museum MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Metzler Seeks to Certify Practice Mngrs. Class METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: E-Z Pass Surcharge Illegal, Says Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Debiase Suit Over Debt Collection Practices MOVING SOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of $10K Settlement in Arellano MY PILLOW INC: Deutsch Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA NAVISTAR INC: District Court Gives Final Approval to $135MM Deal NET 1 UEPS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit NEW JERSEY: Court Seeks More Briefing on Greco's Injunction Bid NUTRIBULLET: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NUVANCE HEALTH: Wallace Files Suit in New York ONE PLANET: Hildre Sues Over Unwanted Calls That Invade Privacy ONSTAR LLC: Court Won't Certify Classes & Subclasses PETER THOMAS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid PFIZER INC: Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Zantac, Says Suit PRESSLER FELT: Nieto Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York PRO TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Seeks Final Approval of Settlement PROLOGIS INC: Garfield Agrees to Dismiss Class Suit PROVIDENT CREDIT: Morris Sues in California Over Warranty Issues R & B CORP: Gregory Files Suit under FDCPA in Indiana R&B WEALTH: Hobbs Sues Over Unsolicited Texts That Violate TCPA RADIUS GLOBAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lohrke Suit RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Moves to Certify Class of Consumers RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Montes Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Wins Final Class Certification in Foster Suit SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Moves to Certify Class & Disability Subclass SANOFI SA: Faces Dobson Suit Over Unsafe Levels of NDMA in Zantac SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Class Certification Sought in Lewis Suit SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Class Action Still Ongoing SOUTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Infill and Pollution in Lake Cooper STARTEK USA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Epley Claims STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in Fondren Suit STATE COLLECTION: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed STRANGE HONEY: Raw Honey Products Not 100% Pure, Greer Claims SYMANTEC CORP: SEB Moves to Certify Class of Common Stock Owners SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Seeks to Certify FLSA Class TOP SURGEONS: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Faitro Counsel Upheld TOTAL CARD: Faces Beltre Suit Over Debt Collection Practices TRIFECTA INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York URBAN AIR PARK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says VCI CONSTRUCTION: Olivas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California VOCUS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $35 Million VOLVO CARS: El Aker Sues Over Missing Feature in XC90 R-Design W.M. FARES: Redacted Crane Report Cause for Concern, Lawyer Says WAWA INC: Faces Hans-Arroyo Suit over Data Security Breach WELLS FARGO: Dore Sues Over Error in Mortgage Loan Modification WILLIAM LYON: Stockholders Drop Suits over Taylor Morrison Merger WOOD GROUP: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Garza Suit Alleges ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Appeal Ongoing in New Jersey Class Action [*] CCPA Class Action Leaves Consumers with Fewer Rights [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 ********* ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class of Inmates Certified in Babu Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins grants the joint motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned ASHOK BABU, ROBERT BELL, IBRAHIM KEEGAN-HORNESBY, DEMAREA JOHNSON, BRANDON JONES, STEPHANIE NAVARRO, ROBERTO SERRANO, and ALEXANDER WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN in his official capacity as Sheriff of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office; CAROL BURTON in her official capacity as Interim Director of the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-07677-NC (N.D. Cal.). The action is certified as a class action, with an Inmate Class and Disability Subclass, as to all claims and defenses at issue in the complaint pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Inmate Class is defined as: All adults who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail. The Disability Subclass is defined as: All qualified individuals with a psychiatric disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 12102, 29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code Section 12926(j) and (m), and who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail. Plaintiffs Babu, Bell, Keegan-Hornesby, Johnson, Jones, Navarro, Serrano, and Washington will serve as representatives of the Inmate Class. Plaintiffs Babu, Bell, Keegan-Hornesby, Johnson, Jones, Navarro, and Washington will serve as representatives of the Disability Subclass Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP is appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the Inmate Class and Disability Subclass. A trial date of September 21, 2020, is currently set in the lawsuit.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Esq. Ernest Galvan, Esq. Kara J. Janssen, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: jbornstein@rbgg.com egalvan@rbgg.com kjanssen@rbgg.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory B. Thomas, Esq. Temitayo O. Peters, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612-3501 Telephone: (510) 273-8780 Facsimile: (510) 839-9104 E-mail: gthomas@bwslaw.com tpeters@bwslaw.com - and - Paul B. Mello, Esq. Samantha D. Wolff, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: pmello@hansonbridgett.com swolff@hansonbridgett.com ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Morris Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned VINCENT MORRIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. SHERIFF OF ALLEN COUNTY, in his official capacity; ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00034 (N.D. Ind.), seeks to certify a class defined as: all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Allen County Jail. Although the Jail has 741 operational beds, Mr. Morris alleges that it regularly houses more than this number of persons and the membership of the class is constantly changing as prisoners enter and leave the facility. Mr. Morris also asks the Court to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the class.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Falk, Esq. Stevie J. Pactor, Esq. ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 635-4059 Facsimile: (317) 635-4105 E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org spactor@aclu-in.org - and - Samuel Bolinger, Esq. S.L. BOLINGER LAW OFFICE 803 S. Calhoun St., Suite 300 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Telephone: (260) 407-0040 E-mail: mark@slblawfirm.org ALLERGAN INC: Faces Newman Product Liability Suit in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan Inc., et al. The case is captioned as ELLEN NEWMAN, AMY GROTTE, RACHAEL HERRON, LISA ROBERTS, AMY EDENS, HEIDI LEE, AMBER FERRELL-STEELE, and TORY BOBADILLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ALLERGAN INC. formerly known as: INAMED CORPORATION; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05968-RBS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 17, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick. The suit involves healthcare and pharmaceutical personal injury product liability issues. Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. The company was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became a public company in 1970.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC 1600 Market St., Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com ALLERGAN PLC: Resolves Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------- Allergan plc disclosed on Jan. 6 that its Warner Chilcott and Watson subsidiaries have reached resolutions with all plaintiffs, including a class of direct purchasers, individual direct purchasers that previously opted out of the direct purchaser class, and a class of indirect purchasers of Loestrin 24 Fe and Minastrin 24 Fe, concluding the previously disclosed antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The settlements make no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the company and resolve the litigation that was scheduled to go to trial on January 6, 2020. Warner Chilcott and Watson will pay approximately $300 million under the settlement agreements. The settlements are subject to court approval of the agreements with the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The company will take a pre-tax GAAP charge of approximately $300 million to its fourth quarter 2019 earnings. About Allergan plc Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN) – http://www.Allergan.com-- is a global pharmaceutical leader focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients around the world. Allergan markets a portfolio of leading brands and best-in-class products primarily focused on four key therapeutic areas including medical aesthetics, eye care, central nervous system and gastroenterology. As part of its approach to delivering innovation for better patient care, Allergan has built one of the broadest pharmaceutical and device research and development pipelines in the industry. With colleagues and commercial operations located in approximately 100 countries, Allergan is committed to working with physicians, healthcare providers and patients to deliver innovative and meaningful treatments that help people around the world live longer, healthier lives every day. About Warner Chilcott and Watson Warner Chilcott and Watson subsidiaries include Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, Warner Chilcott Company, Inc., Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland, Limited, Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd., Warner Chilcott Corporation, and Warner Chilcott Sales (US), LLC, (collectively, "Warner Chilcott") and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively "Watson"). In 2013, Watson changed its corporate name to Actavis. The same year, Warner Chilcott became a wholly owned subsidiary of Actavis plc which thereafter changed its corporate name to Allergan. Contacts Allergan: Investors: Manisha Narasimhan, PhD (862) 261-7162 Media: Lisa Brown (862) 261-7320 [GN] AMBER ELEVATOR: Laureano-Capellan Sues Over Unlawful Deductions --------------------------------------------------------------- Lewy Laureano-Capellan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. WAYNE CHIRICHELLA, RUSSELL DYSON, AMBER ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS INC. d//b/a ALLBORO & AMBER ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS, "JOHN DOES," name fictitious, actual names and number of such persons being unknown, and "XYZ CORPORATIONS", name fictitious, actual name and number of such corporations being unknown d/b/a ALLBORO & AMBER ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00360 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was primarily paid his wages in cash. However, on occasion, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff his wages in a combination of cash and check. On several occasions, Defendants made unlawful deductions from his salary, the Plaintiff alleges. He notes that on at least four occasions, the Defendant deducted $200-$300 from his salary without his written or verbal consent. The Plaintiff also alleges that his wages did not vary even when he was required to stay later or work a longer day than his usual schedule. He adds that the Defendants did not pay him at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed as a sales representative and general worker at Allboro & Amber Elevator Inspections. The Defendants own, operate and/or control an elevator maintenance and service company located at Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2525 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com ANIES BASWEDAN: Jakarta Citizens to Launch Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Coconuts Jakarta reports that a group of Jakarta citizens say they're going to launch a class action lawsuit against Governor Anies Baswedan over what they perceived to be inadequate prevention and handling of the New Year flood crisis in the capital. Citizens involved in the lawsuit are seeking compensation from Governor Anies' administration for material damages caused by the floods. "In order to prevent man-made disasters in the future, there needs to be a legal movement from the citizens so there's a deterrent effect for policy makers," Diarson Lubis, a lawyer who is representing the class action lawsuit, said in a statement on Jan. 5. Diarson did not reveal how many Jakarta citizens have registered for the lawsuit thus far, nor did he specify when the lawsuit would be filed. Citizens who wish to join the lawsuit can contact Tim Advokasi Korban Banjir DKI Jakarta 2020 (Advocacy Team for the Victims of the 2020 Greater Jakarta Area Floods). The Greater Jakarta Area, as well as parts of Banten and West Java, saw the most intense rainfall since 2007 on New Year's Eve, which continued well into New Year's Day. According to data from the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB), as of 11pm on Dec. 4, 60 people were killed by floods and landslides while over 92,000 were forced to flee their homes. Governor Anies has been the target for much of the blame for the floods, with citizens accusing his administration of failing to prepare Jakarta for heavy rainfall and not making the most out of existing flood prevention infrastructure in the city. On Jan. 4, an online petition was launched appealing to President Joko Widodo to remove Governor Anies from his post over his alleged flood management failures and other policies which he has been criticized for. The petition has been signed by over 200 thousand people. [GN] APOGEE EVENTS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Apogee Events, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apogee Events, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00364 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Apogee Events offers catering, professional staffing and events planning services for a multitude of events and weddings in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com AVIS BUDGET: Hazzard Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Hazzard, Daniel Faiella, Krista Mitchell, Zackrie Tyndal, and Carlos Ramirez, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00764 (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought seeking to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege they consistently worked more than 40 hours per week, but did not receive any overtime pay for any hours worked over 40. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant did not pay them timely for all wages due within 30 days of the end of their employment, as required by California law. The Plaintiffs worked as Operations Managers for the Defendant. Defendant Avis has been in the vehicle rental business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen D. Savits, Esq. GREEN SAVITS LLC 25B Vreeland Road Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (972) 695-7777 Facsimile: (973) 695-7788 Email: gsavits@greensavits.com - and - Rachel Bien, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 S Figueroa, St., Suite 4050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (323) 673-9900 Facsimile: (646) 509-2058 Email: rmb@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: immates@outtengolden.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com BAOZUN INC: Faces Aus Suit over 17% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- IVAR AUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAOZUN INC.; VINCENT WENBIN QIU; and ROBIN BIN LU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11812 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Baozun securities between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against Baozun and certain of its most senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on November 21, 2019, Baozun announced third quarter ("3Q19") financial results that came in lower than the market had been led to expect and provided dismal fourth quarter 2019 ("4Q19") financial guidance, blaming, in large part, the adverse "impact from terminating our service agreement with one electronics brand." Though Baozun did not disclose who that large "electronics brand" was, many in the financial media have suggested that it was Huawei. On this news, the price of Boazun American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") fell $7.60 per share, or 17.47%, to close at $35.90 per share on November 21, 2019, on unusually high trading volume of more than 8 million shares trading, more than eight times the average daily volume over the preceding 10 trading days. Baozun Inc. provides e-commerce solutions. The Company's services include website design, development and hosting, information technology infrastructure, customer service, warehousing, and logistics services, as well as digital marketing. Baozun serves customers in China. [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 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com BAOZUN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Baozun Inc. (NASDAQ: BZUN) between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important February 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Baozun investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Baozun class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1739.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Huawei"), a Chinese-based multi-national technology company, was one of the Company's largest brand partners, and paid more add-on fees for the work Baozun did for it, increasing the revenues Baozun received for Huawei work compared to the Company's other brand partners; (2) as a result, Baozun reported outsized revenue growth during the first half of 2019, which would be abruptly cut off during the second half 2019, after Baozun restructured its relationship with Huawei, as Huawei took much of its online merchandizing in-house; and (3) as a result, Baozun's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1739.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] BARNEY GREENGRASS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barney Greengrass, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barney Greengrass, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00395 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Barney Greengrass, Inc. is a Jewish deli institution since 1908.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BAZ BAGEL: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00392 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC offers hand-rolled bagels, smoked fish & other Jewish comfort fare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BEACHWAY OPERATING: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Beachway Operating, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beachway Operating, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00362 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BEAN TREE CORP: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Bean Tree Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bean Tree Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00371 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Bean Tree Corp. is in the Liquor Stores industry in New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BIG TOP: Pizano Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JOSE PIZANO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. BIG TOP & PARTY RENTALS, LLC d/b/a BIG TOP TENT & PARTY RENTALS, LLC, and MARLENE LEONARD, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-11190 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff filed with the Court his renewed motion for certification of this class: All individuals employed by Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC and Marlene Leonard as hourly employees and who worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any individual work weeks for the period of December 11, 2012 through the date of judgment. Mr. Pizano also asks the Court to appoint him as class representatives; to appoint his counsel to serve as counsel for the class; and to authorize notice to the class of the action and their right to opt out. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have had a policy or practice of paying him and similarly situated non-exempt employees their regular rate of pay for the first fifty (50) hours of work in individual work weeks, categorizing ten (10) hours as "Ride Time" on the employees' paycheck stub paid at the regular rate of pay.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 BLUE NOTE USA: Bishop Files Suit under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Blue Note USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Note USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00389 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Blue Note has been bringing music and shows to the CO/MO area for over 20 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BROCKTON, MA: Pays $4.7MM Settlement Over Discrimination Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Larocque, writing for Enterprise News, reports that two years after a jury sided in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Brockton in Massachusetts is paying out a $4.7 million settlement in connection to the lawsuit won by Russell Lopes, a former applicant for a job at the Department of Public Works who claimed he was denied the position due to racially biased employment discrimination. Mayor Moises Rodrigues said the settlement was finalized around 4:30 p.m. on January 3. In addition to damages that will be paid out to Lopes and attorney fees, Rodrigues said the settlement includes funds for an educational anti-discrimination and diversity program that will be used to train city employees. Rodrigues, who took office by appointment following the death of former mayor Bill Carpenter, said he felt it was important to settle the case, to avoid a costly class action trial and the potentially massive damages that Lopes' attorney was pursuing on behalf of a group of other minority applicants that he claimed also faced a discriminatory hiring process. Two years ago, Lopes was awarded more than $4 million by a jury, which included $1.2 million in punitive damages for employment discrimination. Lopes' attorney previously stated that members of the class included around 40 minorities who applied for city jobs, and that he hoped to get a judgment that would provide each of them $1.2 million for punitive damages for employment discrimination. The first minority mayor in the city's history, Rodrigues said the settlement was important because it allows Brockton to remove a "negative" and "dark cloud" of racism allegations. Rodrigues said he's glad to get the settlement done before the arrival of the city's next leader, Councilor-at-large Robert Sullivan, who is due to be sworn in as mayor on January 6. Rodrigues said he's been working to settle the case since taking office in July, up until Janaury 3 afternoon. "This whole thing could have been devastating to the city," Rodrigues said. "It's a negative cloud that hangs over our heads. I'm glad to put it to rest and move the city forward as I leave office. I thought it was important to do this so we can give the new administration a blank slate to start off, and Sullivan doesn't have to worry about this thing hanging over his head." Lopes alleged that in 2010, when he was trying to get a job as a diesel mechanic at the city's Department of Public Works, he faced a discriminatory hiring process that favored white applicants. His lawsuit, first filed in 2013, stated that the city's hiring officials went out of their way to assist white applicants. Lopes' attorney claimed that the city's former director of personnel, Maureen Cruise, would instruct prospective white employees on how to navigate the hiring process, while minority applicants like Lopes were sent form letters telling them they were not qualified. Cruise, however, denied any racial bias on her part. Lopes also said he faced retaliation, including a harassing visit to his home by city code enforcement officials, after he told his story to The Enterprise in 2011. Gordon said the retaliation was ordered by then-mayor Linda Balzotti one day after the plaintiff was quoted in a July 2011 edition of The Enterprise, where he first shared his story with the public. Balzotti never returned requests for comment to respond to accusations of retaliation against Lopes, and the former mayor didn't participate in an investigation ordered by Carpenter after the conclusion of the six-day jury trial that ended on Jan. 30, 2017. The Enterprise reached the attorney representing Lopes and the class, the Boston-based Philip Gordon, seeking comment. Gordon said he and Lopes are considering making a statement. Asked how the city will be able to pay the nearly $5 million settlement, Rodrigues said that the settlement will be paid from existing funds in a city savings account. The mayor said city residents will not have to pay any additional fees and taxes will not need to be raised to pay for it. "We don't have to raise additional fees to pay for this thing, or cut services," Rodrigues said. Philip Nessralla, who served as city solicitor for Brockton up until January 3, announcing he is stepping down as a new mayoral administration takes over, said he agreed with the city's decision to settle the Lopes case and the class action at this point. In the years following the Lopes case, the city has appealed the outcome of the Lopes trial and Nessralla said he disagreed with the jury's decision. Mediation only began after Rodrigues took office, the class action postponed from an originally scheduled December trial date. "The downside would have been disastrous if we lost the bigger part of it, the class action," Nessralla said. Nessralla said one factor that took away leverage from the city during negotiations was that many politicians during last fall's elections insisted on a settlement, thus removing leverage the city had, which worried the outside lawyer the city hired to appeal the Lopes verdict, the Boston-based Leonard Kesten. "His major concern during the election was that all the politicians said we have to pay him," Nessralla said. "It's hard to settle the case if you say you have to pay him." Nessralla said that the city is filing a malpractice claim against the attorney who represented the city during the Lopes trial, as a way to restore legal defense costs to the city. "This was not a discrimination case," Nessralla said. "This was bad lawyering by a law firm, unfortunately. It should have never come to this. I think we came out to the best possible result." [GN] CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert J Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, JHPDE Finance 1, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00380 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC is a debt collection company specializing in the recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[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) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com CELERITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELERITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-at-00076 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading their privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not possess the Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Plaintiffs assert that their cellular telephone numbers have been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry well over 30 days prior to the Defendants' initial calls. Despite this, the Defendants continued to call Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers. The Defendants continued to call the Plaintiffs in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Sid Naiman is a natural person residing in Butte County, California. Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville, California. Celerity is a telecommunications service provider company engaged in marketing and selling its services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CHERRY HILL SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Gender-Bias Programs ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Madden, writing for KYW Newsradio, reports that a class action suit will be considered in New Jersey Superior Court over a program at one Cherry Hill public school that helps students build leadership skills. Plaintiffs contend there's a gender bias involved. The WATCH program at Clara Barton Elementary aims to help 5th graders not only prepare for middle school, but the challenges of life in general. There's just one problem. "It was run only for boys and girls were not permitted to partake," Mount Laurel attorney Kevin Costello told KYW Newsradio. "We determined that that was illegal under New Jersey anti-discrimination law and so we commenced this action to address it." The parents of two young girls hired Costello to take the matter to Camden County Court. A judge granted class action status to the lawsuit, which includes some 160 young girls who attended Barton dating back to 2014. Two years ago, the district established a similar program called Girls Incorporated. "Although the programs purport to be equal, we do not believe that they are equal," Costello added. "In fact, they shouldn't be separate. The leadership training should be for all students." The Cherry Hill School District issued a statement saying the Barton principal set up different programs because "boys and girls sometimes have different social and emotional needs that are best met in single sex environments". They call the lawsuit's claims unfounded and insist only the one family that filed the action has complained. [GN] CHINO HILLS, CA: Named in Lawsuit for Not Submitting Water Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marianne Napoles, writing for Champion Newspapers, reports that the city of Chino Hills in California, was named with three other entities in a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 17 in San Bernardino Superior Court by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for not submitting a water conservation report required by the state for three consecutive years. The other entities were San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga and Redlands. The NRDC is a non-profit environmental organization established in 1970 with offices in Santa Monica, San Francisco, other states, and abroad. The state's Department of Water Resources began requiring cities and counties to report annually on their landscape permitting programs in 2015 to ensure that new irrigated landscapes are water efficient. The four entities are singled out as "named respondents" and approximately 300 cities and counties are in the "proposed respondent" class. Chino Hills and the other three entities had robust new growth and are representative of all jurisdictions that failed to file one or more of the annual reports between 2015 and 2018, according to Ed Osann, director of national water use efficiency for the NRDC. "While all cities and counties have the responsibility to apply efficiency standards to newly permitted landscapes, the more development that takes place in a jurisdiction, the more the report makes a difference," Mr. Osann said. "Imagine the water-saving impact of applying stringent standards to two landscape projects vs. 2,000." The city of Chino is included in the "proposed respondent" class. The city of Chino did not submit its 2015 report for 23 dwelling units as of Dec. 17 when the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Osann said. It will be up to the court to certify the full class in response to the proposed class, he said. 1,500 new dwellings The city of Chino Hills issued permits for approximately 1,500 units between 2015 and 2017 without submitting the required reports. According to Chino Hills building reports from 2015 to 2017, new dwelling unit permits were issued as follows: 110 permits in 2015, 448 in 2016, and 1,030 in 2017. The residential growth spurt included Bristol Chino Hills, Vila Borba, Santa Barbara and Jade Tree in southern Chino Hills, the Founders development on Grand Avenue and Founders Drive, and The Crossings at Chino Hills on the northeast side of Fairfield Ranch Road and Monte Vista Avenue. Chino Hills city spokesperson Denise Cattern said the city does not comment on active litigation, however the city is committed to water conservation and complying with all water conservation reporting requirements. She said the city can affirm that the report for 2018 was submitted in 2019 and the 2019 report is in development for submittal in 2020. Mrs. Cattern said staff is reviewing reporting requirements for any additional years outstanding. San Bernardino County, one of the largest jurisdictions in the state, did not file any of the four required annual reports since 2015, Mr. Osann said. The county issued permits for more than 2,200 dwelling units from 2015 to 2018, he said. Mr. Osann said the state's Department of Water Resources sent reminders to non-compliant jurisdictions six months ago and the NRDC sent reminder letters to more than 400 jurisdictions on Nov. 15. Out of 540 cities and counties in the state, the majority have yet to file one or more of the annual reports, Mr. Osann said. Since half of California's drinking water supply is used for urban landscape irrigation, substantial water savings can be gained when new landscapes are installed through careful plant selection, efficient irrigation equipment and proper installation, he said. The NRDC is asking the court to name the four entities as representatives of the respondent class, issue a writ of mandate requiring named and proposed respondents to complete annual reports to the state and report to the court and to NRDC at reasonable intervals, and to award the NRDC reasonable attorney fees and costs of the lawsuit. [GN] CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Knox Files Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Intermodal Group. The case is styled as Kenneth Knox, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiff v. Continental Intermodal Group and Continental Intermodal Group - Buk Commodities, LLC, a Texas, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-100131 (Cal. Super., Jan. 15, 2020). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.[BN] Continental Intermodal Group provides logistics services. The Company offers transloading and storage services for oil and gas market. Continental Intermodal Group serves customers in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin E Sullivan, Esq. Melmed Law Group, P.C. 1180 S Beverly Dr, Ste 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158 Tel: (310) 824-3828 Email: ms@melmedlaw.com D&A SERVICES: Saks Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A Services, LLC. The case is styled as Israel Saks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&A Services, LLC d/b/a D&A Services, LLC of IL and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00547 (S.D., N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer bankcard/retail industry, auto deficiency and business to business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com DADDY COOL'S INC: Underpays Bartenders, Alvarado et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS ALVARADO; BENJAMIN LEGUE; FRANCISCO LOPEZ; STEVE MCELHENY; GENESIS RIOS; and MADRID ST. ANGELO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DADDY COOL'S INC. (d/b/a INNJOY LOGAN SQUARE); INNJOY DRINK AND EAT, INC.; INNJOY EAT & DRINK INC.; GABRIELLE HATHAWAY; RICH KEWITZ; RAE L. HATHAWAY; and JOSEPH HATHAWAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08442 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 26, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders. Daddy Cool's Inc. is engaged as a restaurant, bar, and entertainment venue, based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Zito, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD J. ZITO LLC 200 East Randolph Drive, Ste. 5100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 883-5298 E-mail: rich@zitolawchicago.com DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Handley Suit Over Injuries From Omlesartan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Handley, Shelly Phillips, Margaret Adebayo, Janice Atwell, Ernest Hopkins, Darnell Newton, Brett Rich, and Sandee Salmon, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.; DAIICHI SANKYO CO, LTD.; DAIICHI SANKYO US HOLDINGS, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00067-C (D. Okla., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf those who have taken the drug Omlesartan, who have suffered a personal injury, including injury to gastrointestinal tissue, as a result of the use of this medication, and who have not participated in the global Benicar settlement with Daiichi Sanko announced on August 1, 2017. The Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest knew or should have known that use of olmesartan medoxomil products increased the risk of developing multiple injuries, including serious gastrointestinal injuries, such as Olmesartan Associated Enteropathy ("OAE"), sprue-like enteropathy, villous atrophy/blunting/damage, inflammation, nausea, vomiting, chronic diarrhea, malnutrition, dehydration, atrophy, kidney failure, weight loss, abdominal and gastrointestinal pain, colitis, and/ or gastritis; and that the labels and sales and marketing documents for Benicar, Benicar HCT, Azor, and Tribenzor, failed to include such risks and misrepresented the safety of the drugs, and continue to inadequately and inaccurately disclose those risks today, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege they have all suffered personal injuries as a result of use of olmesartan products. They contend that their damages and injuries are a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent, intentional, and wrongful acts regarding the design, development, formulation, manufacture, testing, packaging, labeling, promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution and sale of products containing the drug olmesartan medoxomil. Omlesartan is also known as Benicar, Benicar HCT, Azor, or Tribenzor. The Plaintiffs assert that with respect to each of the products, the Defendants exaggerated their benefits and understated, omitted and/or failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with such products. The Defendants are marketing and selling pharmaceutical drugs containing olmesartan medoxomil that are manufactured by Daiichi Sankyo Japan throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Sill, Esq. FULMER SILL 1101 N. Broadway, Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 509-6300 Facsimile: (405) 509-6268 Email: matt@sill-law.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Green Files Suit in California ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The case is styled as Eric Green, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dignity Health and Does 1 Through 10 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC20582327 (Cal. Super., Jan. 21, 2020). The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints. Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. Bryan Schwartz Law180 Grand Ave, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Costa Seeks to Certify Class of Patients -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ENZO COSTA, et al. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03185-RDM (D.D.C.), move for entry of an order determining that their action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of "all current and future Saint Elizabeths Hospital patients." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their Counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Saint Elizabeths is this District's only public psychiatric facility for individuals with serious and persistent mental illness who need intensive inpatient care to support their recovery. The patient population of Saint Elizabeths are all individuals, who are indefinitely, involuntarily committed to the District's care, and each patient at Saint Elizabeths will likely be committed at Saint Elizabeths for all or most of their lives. According to the Motion, for the second time in three years, Saint Elizabeths Hospital was without safe, running water from September 26, 2019, through at least October 23, 2019, exposing patients at the facility to harmful physical, emotional, and mental health consequences. The Plaintiffs contend that each of them and many of the other patients at the Hospital experienced unhygienic conditions and an interruption of their medical and mental health care. The Plaintiffs assert that all of the members of that population are persons with mental health disabilities who are, or who will be in the future, committed to the Defendants' care. The Plaintiffs contend that all members were injured and likely to be injured by recurrent inhumane, unsafe, and medically dangerous conditions at Saint Elizabeths and the lack of appropriate hospital administration that led to those conditions in violation of Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the ADA.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Freedman, Esq. Tirzah S. Lollar, Esq. Brian A. Vaca, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: John.Freedman@aporter.com Tirzah.Lollar@arnoldporter.com Brian.Vaca@arnoldporter.com - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. Michael Perloff, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org mperloff@acludc.org - and - Kaitlin Banner, Esq. Margaret Hart, Esq. Hannah Lieberman, Esq. Jonathan Smith, Esq. Maria Morris, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: Kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org margaret_hart@washlaw.org hannah_lieberman@washlaw.org jonathan_smith@washlaw.org maria_morris@washlaw.org DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn Renews Bid to Certify Employees Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LYNN MCGLENN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DRIVELINE RETAIL MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02097-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), filed with the Court her Renewed Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is defined as: All current and former Driveline employees whose PII was compromised as a result of the Data Disclosure. Excluded from the Class are the officers, directors and legal representatives of Driveline and the judges and court personnel to whom this case may be assigned and any members of their immediate families. Ms. McGlenn is an employee at Driveline whose social security number, name, address, and wage information, along with that of over 15,800 other employees, was released by her employer to an unknown third party. On February 14, 2017, the Defendant notified its current and former employees that their 2016 W-2 tax form information had been subjected to "a data breach." As a result, over 15,800 W-2s, containing employees' social security numbers, names, home addresses and wage information were released by Driveline to an unknown entity, Ms. McGlenn asserts. She adds that the confidential and private employee information, referred to as "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII," had been entrusted to Driveline as a part of those more than 15,800 employees' agreement to provide services for Driveline so that Driveline could profit from those services. In the alternative, Ms. McGlenn seeks to have certain issues certified for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification permits a court to retain a case's class character where common questions predominate within certain issues and where class treatment of those issues is the superior method of resolution.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 E-mail: jmartin@ForThePeople.com jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 861-8800 Facsimile: (303) 861-8855 E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com E CAPITAL FUNDING: Foo Suit Alleges Discrimination Over Pregnancy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chia Yi Foo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. E CAPITAL FUNDING LLC., YA DONG LIU, PEI JIAN CHI, AND LI HUA ZHANG, Case No. 1:20-cv-00376 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the American with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Citizens Commission on Human Rights, New York Maternity Leave Laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the PDA, ADA, NYHRL, CCHR and NY Maternity Leave Laws by engaging in a pattern and practice of discriminating against its employees, including the Plaintiff, based on their pregnancy, the Plaintiff contends. She also asserts that the Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, to provide light duty or alternative assignments, and to provide leave when reasonably requested. She adds that the Defendants terminated her employment based on her protected status--a pregnant woman. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, unpaid wages, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours for each workweek, and failing to provide undisrupted and adequate meal breaks. The Plaintiff was employed as a bookkeeper and human resource personnel by the Defendants. Defendant E Capital owns and operates a financing/mortgage business.[BN] Carter R. Qi, Esq. HEIFERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10E Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 888-9545 FEDERAL TAX RELIEF: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL TAX RELIEF, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00692 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading his privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Defendant called the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County, California. Federal Tax Relief, Inc. is a tax consulting company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (NYSE: FCAU) between February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the case go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v/ or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com, slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; (2) high-ranking Fiat official were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in Chassen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ARTHUR CHASSEN, et al. v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00291-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), seeks class certification. The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. DiSabato, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: ddisabato@wolflawfirm.net FLRISH INC: Calhoun Sues Over Unwanted Autodialed Marketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- GIA CALHOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLRISH, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On December 12, 2019, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited, text message to her cell phone number from Harborside using phone number 231-354-2846. The Plaintiff contends that she has never provided her consent to Harborside to send her text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or to contact her notwithstanding the registration of her cellular phone number on the national Do Not Call registry. Harborside is a cannabis company with retail stores in Desert Hot Springs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 L INDBROOK D RIVE Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN, P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com FMS ADVANCE: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FMS ADVANCE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00643 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading his privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. On August 22, 2018, the Plaintiff requested through counsel that the Defendant stop calling him, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County, California. FMS ADVANCE, LLC is a business financing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FOODSTATE INC: Judge to Consider $2.1MM Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Alden, writing for Union Leader, reports that members of a class-action lawsuit against a New Hampshire dietary supplement company may be entitled to receive up to $100 under a proposed settlement pending in U.S. District Court. A hearing was on the docket for Monday, Jan. 6, where Judge Landya B. McCafferty was scheduled to hear from attorneys on both sides regarding the $2.1 million settlement to resolve consumer complaints alleging false claims made on labeling for vitamin and supplement products. FoodState Inc., of Manchester, denies all liability in the claims, but did agree to the settlement in May to avoid the time and expense of further litigation, according to court documents. The lawsuit was brought by three California residents who claimed certain FoodState products included labeling that was false or misleading. According to the lawsuit, some products were represented as having come predominantly from "whole foods" rather than synthetically created vitamins or processed extracts. Product labeling also made representations of "vegetable lubricant," which the customers maintained should have been properly labeled as stearic acid, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs also questioned whether the products were "made in the USA," as claimed. The settlement period covers certain products purchased between Jan. 15, 2011, to Sept. 15, 2018, according to court documents Although FoodState denied any wrongdoing, the company did agree to establish a $2.1 million fund to cover valid claims made by members of the class-action suit. Members can claim up to $25 per bottle of products included in the settlement for up to four bottles, totaling $100. FoodState also agreed to making labeling changes that included not using the phrase "100% Whole Food Supplement" or "Made in the USA" for a 30-month period on products that do not meet those standards, according to court documents. Other changes included not using "vegetable lubricant" as a generic term and specifying the material used. FoodState also agreed to add a link to its website offering more information about product ingredients, according to court documents. McCafferty gave preliminary approval to terms on the settlement in May 2019. The judge was scheduled to hold a fairness hearing Jan. 6. [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) to submit their losses now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses. A class action complaint against the Company and its senior executives has been filed. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) Securities Class Action: The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that Forescout was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA"). The market began to learn the truth on Oct. 10, 2019, when Forescout announced disappointing Q3 2019 financial results and slashed revenue guidance. In explaining the poor performance and outlook, Defendants cited "extended approval cycles which pushed several deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in EMEA." On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or 37.32%, wiping out nearly $700 million in market capitalization. "We're focused on investors' losses and whether the Company presented a false portrayal of their EMEA pipeline," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of Forescout and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Forescout Technologies should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email FSCT@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. Tel: 844-916-0895 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Espinosa Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Christine Espinosa, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and other aggrieved employees v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; GENESIS HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GHC PAYROLL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANAHEIM TERRACE CARE CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV38528, 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 Jan. 23, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00688 to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts these causes of action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the putative class against the Defendants: (1) Failure to Pay Regular and Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods or Pay Premium Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (3) Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods or Pay Premium Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure to Pay Wages Timely Upon Termination; (5) Failure to Pay Accrued Vacation Wages Upon Termination; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code; and (8) Penalties Pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Curtis A, Graham, Esq. Ian T. Maher, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Fax: 213.443.4299 GRIMM ALES LLC: Bishop Files Suit Under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Grimm Ales LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grimm Ales LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00373 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). Grimm specializes in concise, elegant ales epitomizing the creative, experimental spirit of the American artisanal beer revolution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com GRUBHUB INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Grubhub Inc. (NYSE:GRUB) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 30, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), [we]re encouraged to contact the firm before January 21, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Grubhub suffered from declining customer orders, despite major investments and marketing designed to spur demand. The Company's new customers generated lower demand than older customers due to a tendency to use competing services at the same time. The Company's exclusive partnership model had failed, forcing it to resort to aggressive sales tactics used by its competitors. Grubhub was forced into major capital expenditures to grow revenue and maintain its market share. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Grubhub, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] GS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dobie Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Dobie, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GS GROUP FAIR OAKS, LLC, and GARY SKINNER, Case No. 5:20-cv-00083 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of their failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other tipped managers were not paid for the time they spent performing non-tipped work. The Plaintiff and other tipped managers were instructed to not record the hours they spent in meetings and setting schedules, and they were only allowed to record the hours they spent performing tipped work. Thus, the Plaintiff and other tipped managers were only paid for the time they spent actually bartending, despite the fact that they regularly spent six to ten hours per week performing non-tipped work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a tipped manager from November 2019 through January 2, 2020. GS Group Fair Oaks, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that owns and operates two restaurants in the Boerne and San Antonio areas, operating under the names "Conroy's Irish Pub & Grill" and "Conroy's Bar & Grill."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com HALO VEHICLE: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halo Vehicle Protection, LLC. The case is styled as Tommy J. Tompkins, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Halo Vehicle Protection, LLC and Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033-JB-M (S.D., Ala., Jan. 21, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Halo Vehicle Protection, LLC offers automotive services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq. Underwood & Riemer 2153 Airport Boulevard Mobile, AL 36606 Tel: (251) 432-9212 Email: kriemer01@gmail.com HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Briscoe's Bid to Certify Class Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John Robert Blakey denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Laura Briscoe, et al. v. Health Care Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16−cv−10294 (N.D. Ill.). For the reasons explained in the Court's accompanying memorandum opinion and order, the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert opinions of Dr. Lauren Hanley, motion to exclude the expert opinions of Ms. Nicole Peluso, are granted.[CC] HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Flagg-El's Bid for Class Certification Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. W. Harold Albritton denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify the case titled as ANDRE D. FLAGG-EL, #310 705 v. HOUSTON COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00909-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala.), as a class action. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody entered a Recommendation on December 2, 2019. There being no timely objections filed to the Recommendation, and after a review of the file, the Court adopts the Recommendation. Judge Albritton notes that the case is not closed and is referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.[CC] HTDG LLC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hailee Jackson, Jorden Estis, and Lindsey Kingsbery, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees v. HTDG, LLC d/b/a HONKY TONK CENTRAL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs also seek to recover all damages due them for gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the THRA. The Defendant unlawfully required the Plaintiffs, as well as other individuals employed as tipped employees, to contribute their tips to invalid tip-sharing arrangements and shaved hours worked off the Plaintiffs' recorded hours, denying them minimum wages for hours worked under 40 in a workweek and overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant's managers at Honky Tonk Central included Jay Emery and Ficili. The Plaintiffs allege that Emery made daily derogatory and sexual comments to his female employees, including the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members. Examples of Emery and Ficili's derogatory and sexual comments to female employees include: referring to his female employees as "dumb bitches"; asking female employees who had breast augmentations to show him their breasts so that he could compare the doctors' work; telling female employees to "show a little more" skin during private parties at Honky Tonk Central; telling female employees to stand in front of the camera when they changed clothes in the office at Honky Tonk Central; making comments to female employees like, "Y'all are women," and "You're stupid;" and making comments to female employees based on stereotypes about women allegedly not being good at counting and math. Another female employee made a sexual harassment complaint against Emery in 2012, because Emery touched her in an inappropriate manner while at work. The Defendant settled the sexual harassment complaint privately but did not correct Emery's discriminatory behavior, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as bartenders, bar leads, food runners, and servers. HTDG owns and operates Honky Tonk Central, a three-story bar, live music venue, and restaurant on Lower Broadway in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com IBM CORP: Janecyk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Janecyk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Case No. 2020CH00833 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like IBM may not obtain and/or possess an individual's biometrics unless it: informs that person in writing that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or stored; informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric information is being collected, stored and used; receives a written release from the person for the collection of his or her biometric identifiers or information; and publishes publically available written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, IBM is actively collecting, storing, using, and disclosing--without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data retention policies--the biometrics of millions of unwitting individuals whose faces appear in IBM's Diversity in Faces Dataset ("DiF Dataset"), which dataset consists of about a million photographs of faces IBM uses to develop and train its facial recognition technologies, according to the complaint. Specifically, IBM has created, collected, and stored millions of "face templates"--highly detailed geometric maps of the face--from about a million photographs that make up its DiF dataset. IBM creates these templates using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the points and contours of faces that appear in its dataset. Each face template that IBM extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to prevent IBM from further violating the privacy rights of those individuals appearing in IBM's DiF Dataset, and to recover statutory damages for IBM's unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of the BIPA. Plaintiff Tim Janecyk is a resident and citizen of Illinois. IBM is a New York Corporation with its headquarters at Armonk, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com INNOVATIVE MARKETING: Fabricant Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant and Sylvia Shick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE MARKETING ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00645 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy. The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place a call to the Plaintiffs seeking to solicit services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants also did not possess the Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs in an attempt to solicit services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Los Angeles County and Riverside County, California. INNOVATIVE MARKETING ENTERPRISES, INC. is an online marketing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Potential Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Instructure, Inc. ("Instructure" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to private equity firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"). On December 4, 2019, the two parties announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will acquire Instructure in a merger worth $2 billion. As a result of the merger, Instructure's shareholders are only anticipated to receive $47.60 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Instructure. Our Firm's investigation so far has discovered that the process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest, thus making the process and consideration unfair. Just days following the announcement of the merger, several of Instructure's largest shareholders voiced their opposition to the merger. Rivulet Capital, a shareholder that holds 5.23% of Instructure's stock, filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC which discloses that it "strongly opposes" the merger which "significantly undervalues" Instructure. Praesidium Investment Management ("Praesidium"), a 7.5% shareholder of Instructure also voiced its opposition to the merger by writing a letter to the Board citing "a rushed process, potential conflicts of interests and a lack of transparency . . . ." If you own shares of Instructure and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/instructure-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. This notice may constitute Attorney Advertising. Craig J. Springer, Esq. Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013 Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com [GN] INSTRUCTURE INC: Investors Challenge Merger with PIV Purchaser --------------------------------------------------------------- Instructure, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 17, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in two stockholder class action suits related to its merger with PIV Purchaser, LLC. On December 4, 2019, Instructure, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with PIV Purchaser, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and PIV Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. On January 7, 2020, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a revised definitive proxy statement with respect to the special meeting of Instructure stockholders scheduled to be held on February 13, 2020 in connection with the Merger. In connection with the Merger, after the Definitive Proxy Statement was filed, two stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed: (i) in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned Post v. Instructure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-RGA; and (ii) in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned Zhang v. Instructure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00042-UNA , and together with the Post Complaint, the Complaints. The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that Instructure and the members of its Board of Directors purportedly omitted material information from the Proxy Statement and the Zhang Complaint includes additional claims with respect to breach of fiduciary duties and allegations that the Merger and the process that led to it was procedurally and substantively flawed. The Complaints also allege claims against the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The Complaints seek, among other things, additional disclosure of facts relating to the Merger and/or injunctive relief. Instructure said, "Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the future. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaints lack merit and will vigorously defend against these and any subsequently filed similar actions." Instructure, Inc., provides cloud-based learning management platform for academic institutions and companies worldwide. The Company offers its platform through a Software-as-a-Service business model. It was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits over Security Issues Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company continues to defend several consumer class action suits in the U.S., Canada, and Israel relating to certain security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018 As of January 22, 2020, consumer class action lawsuits relating to certain security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018 were pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel. The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the U.S., numerous individual class action suits filed in various jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Intel filed a motion to dismiss that consolidated action in October 2018, and a hearing on that motion was held in February 2019. In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled. In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, the court has stayed the case until April 2020. In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Haifa. In the first case, the District Court denied the parties' joint motion to stay filed in January 2019, but to date has deferred Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint in view of Intel's pending motion to dismiss in the consolidated proceeding in the U.S. Intel filed a motion to stay the second case pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and a hearing on that motion has been scheduled for May 2020. Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief. Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from those matters." Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California. INTERO REAL: Chinitz Seeks Certification of 4 Classes in TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Case No. 5:18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), seeks certification of four classes pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Chinitz also asks the Court to appoint Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Reese LLP as class counsel. Defendant Intero operates through over a thousand real estate agents, primarily in California, who represent consumers when they buy and sell real estate. To bring in new business, many of Intero's real estate agents "cold call" residential and cellular telephone numbers, ignoring whether the calls are unwanted. According to the Motion, in their zeal to find more clients, outpace the competition, and make more money for themselves and Intero, these agents cold-call individuals, who have registered their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR"); turn a blind eye to TCPA rules concerning maintenance and use of a company do not call list; place calls using artificial or prerecorded messages without consent; and call potential clients before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. By engaging in and promoting these practices, Intero systematically violated, and continues to violate, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Plaintiff contends. In this Motion, Mr. Chinitz seeks certification of these classes: (1) National Do Not Call Registry Class ("DNC Class"): All persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (b) promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their non-business telephone lines; (e) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR for at least 31 days; (f) at any time since September 13, 2014; (2) Internal Do Not Call Class ("Internal DNC Class"): All persons in the United States who: (a) were on an internal list of persons who asked Intero not to call them ("Internal DNC List"), (b) received more than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (c) promoting Intero's goods or services; (d) in a 12-month period; (e) on their non-business telephone line; (f) at any time since September 14, 2014; (3) Early/Late Calls Class: All persons in the United States who: (a) received one more more telemarketing call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (b) on their non-business telephone line; (c) before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time, recipient's location); (d) at any time since September 13, 2014; and (4) Artificial or Prerecorded Message Residential Class ("Prerecorded Message Class"): All persons in the United States to whom: (a) a California Intero sales associate, or a person/entity acting on behalf of a California Intero sales associate, initiated on Intero's behalf one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) to the recipient's non-business telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since September 13, 2014. The Court will commence a hearing on April 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com vprentice@tzlegal.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com INTUIT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INTUIT INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00612 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site 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 Web site and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site, http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/,is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. He seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a tax preparation company that owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the delivery of such throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com J.E.R.P. LLC: Jones Sues Over Violation of Due Process of Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Jomia Jones & Shannae Williams, Casey Wilkinson & Tina Hendrix, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. J.E.R.P., LLC, Phillip Fornaro, Jeffrey Gustafson, Eric Kenneth Gustafson, Raymond Peter Gustafson, Case No. 2020CH00873 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of due process of law. Defendant Phillip Fornaro is a duly licensed attorney in Illinois but he has chosen an unlicensed person, Brad Graff, to represent the Corporation in court, according to the complaint. The Defendant Corporation has filed dozens of eviction actions from 2015 through 2019 without ever having been represented by an attorney. Illinois Law provides that: "Plaintiffs shall have the liberty of prosecuting, and defendants of defending in their proper persons." The permission granted by statute to prosecute and defend actions "in their proper persons" has never been, nor could it be, construed to include corporations, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs were residential tenants of J.E.R.P., LLC, which is owned and managed by the Individual Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Pensack, Esq. 4901 N. Central Park Avenue Chicago, IL 60625-5613 Phone: (773) 866-1344 JA APPAREL CORP: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille --------------------------------------------------- HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JA APPAREL CORP. D/B/A JOSEPH ABBOUD, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11807 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed 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. JA Apparel Corporation designs, manufactures, sources, merchandises, markets, and distributes apparel and furnishings through domestic and international licensing agreements in the United States. The Company is based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com JONES DAY: Certification of Equal Pay Collective Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NILAB RAHYAR TOLTON et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JONES DAY, a General Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00945-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying an Equal Pay Act collective action and authorizing the mailing of notice and consent to join forms to members of the proposed collective action. Jones Day is an international law firm based in the United States.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Classes, and the Proposed Collective, are: Kate Mueting, Esq. Paul Blankenstein, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 700 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 499-5206 E-mail: kmueting@sanfordheisler.com pblankenstein@sanfordheisler.com - and - Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 111 S. Calvert Street, Ste. 1950 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 834-7415 Facsimile: (410) 834-7425 E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com - and - David W. Sanford, Esq. Russell L. Kornblith, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com KNIGHTEN MACHINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KNIGHTEN MACHINE & SERVICE, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff says he worked over forty hours per week. He asserts that the Defendant willfully committed violations of the FLSA by failing to pay overtime premiums to hourly employees, including him, for hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week. The Defendant's actions were willful and in blatant disregard for the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, says the complaint. Plaintiff Henry Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a shop hand. Knighten Machine & Service, Inc. is a full service industrial pump distributor offering parts, sales and service of industrial pumps in and around Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: doug@morelandlaw.com KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Certification Sought in Hawkins Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-02320-JM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), moves the Court to order that: 1. Plaintiff's claims be maintained as a class action; 2. Plaintiff be named Class Representative; and 3. Plaintiff's counsel, the Weston Firm, be appointed Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 24, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 Facsimile: (619) 343-2789 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Cruz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA NUEVA SABROSURA RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a QUE SABROSURA RESTAURANT AND BAR and EDDY MORONTA, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-00609 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and to provide proper statements with each payment of wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he worked an approximate total of 51 hours per week. He was paid a flat weekly salary irrespective of the number of hours he worked per week and at no time was he paid the required minimum wage or overtime wages. The Defendants regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages of one and one-half times his regular hourly work rate for any hours that he worked in excess of forty 40 per workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a cook's assistant and food runner for the Defendants at their restaurant. Que Sabrosura is a restaurant and bar located at Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Luke, Jr., Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 420-9300 LEADS2RESULTS INC: Abante Rooter Sues Alleging Violation of TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEADS2RESULTS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 4:20-cv-00461-KAW (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading its privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Plaintiff says it requested for the Defendants to stop calling Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from the Defendants, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville, California. LEADS2RESULTS, INC. is a marketing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com LENDABIZ CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENDABIZ CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00650 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place a call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Plaintiff says he requested through counsel that the Defendants stop calling him, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County, California. LENDABIZ CAPITAL LLC is a business financing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com LLOYDS BANK: Collas Crill Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Bell, Esq. -- gareth.bell@collascrill.com -- and Jack Crisp, Esq. --jack.crisp@collascrill.com -- of Collas Crill, in an article for Mondaq, report that judgment was recently given in the first shareholder class action claim in England, Sharp v Blank [2019] EWHC 3078 (Ch). The claims were brought by 5,803 shareholders in Lloyds Bank against some of its former directors, and Lloyds itself. They stemmed from Lloyds' reverse takeover of HBOS PLC during the financial crisis in 2008. The judgment concerns the recommendation made by directors to shareholders, and disclosure of information ahead of a shareholder vote approving the acquisition. The judgment demonstrates the difficulty future shareholder class actions of this kind may have (a) establishing a valid claim against directors; and (b) showing loss on the part of the shareholders. Background The actions of the directors which formed the basis for the claim took place in 2008, during the financial crisis. HBOS was suffering the effects of the crisis and faced serious liquidity problems. Lloyds had been looking for potential acquisition targets and had previously considered HBOS. However, there were significant competition issues: after the acquisition it was estimated Lloyds would have c. 28 per cent of the UK mortgage market. The crisis deepened in early September 2008 and, on September 15, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. That evening at a function, Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister, implied to Sir Victor Blank (Lloyds' chairman) that the government would step in to handle any competition issues in the interest of certainty regarding the future care of HBOS, but Lloyds would have to move quickly. Lloyds' acquisition of HBOS was announced three days later, on 18 September. On September 25 and October 2, 2008, Lloyds made two collateralised interbank facilities available to HBOS with a combined value of GBP9.9 billion (Lloyds Repo). The purpose of these facilities was to help HBOS with its immediate funding requirements in the face of the credit crunch which followed Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. On October 1, 2008, the Bank of England gave what later became known as emergency liquidity assistance to HBOS in the form of a collateralised emergency facility (ELA). The Listing Rules required the approval of Lloyds' shareholders for the acquisition. An extraordinary general meeting was called and a shareholder circular was prepared explaining the benefits and risks of the transaction (Circular). The Circular recommended that the shareholders approve the acquisition. The Circular did not mention either the Lloyds Repo or the ELA. The shareholders approved the acquisition on November 19, 2008 and the acquisition was completed on January 16, 2009 by way of a scheme of arrangement. HBOS shareholders received 0.605 Lloyds shares for each HBOS share they held. The Claim The judgment summarises the Claimants' case in two parts: 1. 'The Lloyds directors should not have recommended the acquisition because it represented a dangerous and value-destroying strategy which involved unacceptably risky decisions' (Recommendation Case). 2. 'The Lloyds directors should have provided further information about Lloyds and about HBOS, in particular about a funding crisis faced by HBOS and the related vulnerability of HBOS' assets' (Disclosure Case). It was the Claimants' case that the acquisition would have collapsed or would never have been approved by the shareholders, but for the actions described at 1 and 2 above. The acquisition then caused the Claimants loss because Lloyds had overpaid for the HBOS shares, causing loss of value to the Lloyds shares they held. The Judgment The Recommendation Case To establish the negligence alleged in the Recommendation Case, the shareholders would have had to show that no reasonably competent director would have made the recommendation. It was not sufficient to merely establish that others might have taken a different view. Advice from investment banker advisors had contributed to the recommendation. The judge concluded that the directors were not expected to replicate the work undertaken by those advisors unless there was some obvious error of analysis or mistake in its factual basis. Further, if the board failed to seriously consider advice given by investment bankers they would almost certainly be negligent. The judge made clear that claimants could not rely on the benefit of hindsight, and restricted himself to examining the state of affairs at the time the recommendation was made up until the shareholders' vote. The judge concluded that 'a reasonably competent director of a large bank could reasonably have reached the view at the end of October 2008 that the acquisition was beneficial to Lloyds shareholders and could reasonably have maintained that view until the shareholders' vote', therefore the Recommendation Case was dismissed. The Disclosure Case The judgment stated that the duty on directors to disclose sufficient information was to provide shareholders with a fair, candid and reasonable account of the circumstances, so the shareholders could make an informed decision. Directors do not need to provide all the information upon which their recommendation was based; they could select the key points to put across to the shareholders. The directors were required to assess both positives and negatives, but did not need to emphasise the weaknesses. The judgment considered whether the directors' direct duties extended to announcements of mergers, statements made during presentations or calls with analysts during the offer period. It was concluded that directors' duties to disclose sufficient information would not generally apply to announcements of mergers made to the market; to put such a duty on directors would undermine the distinct legal personality of the company. The purpose of these announcements was to fulfil regulatory obligations, not to inform the shareholders in relation to the vote. The directors were not adjudged to owe duties to the shareholders in this case when they were making statements at presentations to journalists and analysts. The judge commented that personal liability for statements made on behalf of the company required more than merely to be a director and to make a statement. The judge's decision on this point was based on the particular facts of this case but included: -- the statements were not being made directly to the shareholders; -- Lloyds made it clear that shareholders should only rely on the Circular itself; -- the statements could not be taken to be qualifying or adding to the Circular; -- the Claimants had failed to demonstrate that the statements had affected journalists' or analysts' commentary on the acquisition; and -- the Claimants had not shown that any shareholder's decision was influenced by the statements made at that presentation. Seven aspects of the Circular itself were alleged by the Claimants to constitute negligent misstatements or to fall short of the directors' duty to make sufficient disclosure of information material to the shareholders' decision. The judge concluded that the directors' duties of sufficient disclosure had been breached by not noting the existence of the ELA on the basis that: 'it showed the funding position of HBOS and presented a funding risk that would have to be absorbed by, and managed by, the Enlarged Group'. The judge also concluded that the Lloyds Repo should have been disclosed to provide a fair, candid and reasonable account of the proposed acquisition. The directors treated the Lloyds Repo as just another example of inter-bank lending which Lloyds regularly made in the ordinary course of business and which normally would not constitute a material contract for the purposes of the Circular. However, the directors should have considered the Lloyds Repo differently on the basis that it was much larger (twice as large as any before), it was made during the credit crunch when the market for interbank lending was heavily curtailed, and it was bilateral between the buyer and the target. To meet the directors' duties of disclosure the Circular should at least have disclosed 'that HBOS was to a degree dependant on bilateral funding'. In relation to the ELA, the evidence did not show how the decision not to include the ELA was made, and it was not clear that the directors had considered the issue; further, they had not informed their lawyers about the ELA and they had not sought advice on whether it should be included in the Circular. Likewise with the decision about disclosing the Lloyds Repo, the directors had assumed, without asking, that their lawyers had considered the question of whether it should be disclosed in the course of drafting the Circular. This led the judge to conclude that there had been misstatements in the Circular and that the directors had failed to exercise the requisite level of care in relation to how the Circular dealt with the ELA and Lloyds Repo. However, the judge felt that sufficient wording to meet the directors' duties would nonetheless have been in 'carefully framed terms' and, had that wording been included, it would not have caused the transaction to collapse or the majority of the shareholders to vote against the transaction. Therefore, the directors' breaches had not caused any loss to the Claimants, and the Disclosure Case was also dismissed. Loss The judge went on to observe that the claimants would have struggled to establish that they had suffered loss, even if either claim had been made out. This is because any loss to the value of shareholders' shares in Lloyds merely reflected the loss suffered by Lloyds itself for paying an inflated price for HBOS. The loss had been properly suffered by Lloyds itself and it would have been for Lloyds to bring any claim it might have in that situation. This principle is known as 'reflective loss' and it should be noted that there has historically been some doubt expressed by the judiciary in Guernsey over whether this principle forms part of Guernsey law, and it has yet to be tested. Conclusion As well as being an interesting part of the history of the 2008 financial crisis, Sharp v Blank clarifies some important issues relevant for any future actions against directors. Confirmation of directors' ability to rely on their professional advisors without replicating their work is to be welcomed. The breaches which were found to have been committed by the directors came back to key considerations such as how directors' decisions are recorded and how they engage with legal advisors. The case also re-emphasised that the 'bar' to establishing negligence by directors is a high one – a claimant must establish that no reasonably competent director would have acted as the director in question did; it is not sufficient to establish that a hypothetical, reasonable director would have acted differently. This is the same test that was confirmed by the Royal Court in Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) v Conway and others [38/2017]. [GN] MAURICE AND PAUL: Moffitt Sues Over Sudden Closing of Museum ------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH MOFFITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MAURICE AND PAUL MARCIANO ART FOUNDATION; BEVERLY PACIFIC, LLC; MAURICE MARCIANO; PAUL MARCIANO; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 19STCV45800 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged flagrant violations of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On the evening of November 5, 2019, the Defendants suddenly abandoned their supposed commitment to serving the public and announced without any advance notice that they were closing their Museum on the very next day and laying off the vast majority of their employees two days later, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants failed to provide sufficient notice under the California WARN Act before ceasing operations and conducting mass layoffs, they are liable under the Act to him and all others similarly situated for up to 60 days of back pay and the value of the cost of any benefits; civil penalties; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Moffitt was employed at the Museum as a Visitor Services Associate from July 2017 to November 7, 2019. MAF is a non-profit arts foundation located on Wilshire Boulevard in the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. Beverly Pacific is a Beverly Hills based holding company that invests across multiple asset classes with a particular focus on real estate and private equity investments. The Individual Defendants are owners and directors, and officers of both MAF and Beverly Pacific.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn Rothner, Esq. Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq. Daniel B. Rojas, Esq. Juhyung Harold Lee, Esq. ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE 510 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7555 Facsimile: (626) 577-0124 E-mail: grothner@rsglabor.com enaduris-weissman@rsglabor.com droj as@rsglabor.com hlee@rsglabor.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Metzler Seeks to Certify Practice Mngrs. Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned MEREDITH METZLER, DIANA BELICH, BLEAN TAYE, and STEVEN BRUNO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL, Case No. 8:19-cv-02289-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), move for the entry of an Order conditionally certifying a collective of, and permitting Court-supervised notice to: all similarly situated salaried, exempt-classified Practice Managers ("PMs") who worked for Defendant Medical Management International, Inc., and/or any of its subsidiaries doing business as Banfield Pet Hospital (collectively "Banfield" or "Defendants"), at any location in the United States from June 12, 2015 to November 2016 (the "FLSA Collective"), including during the 4 to 8 week PM training period, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order (a) requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), work and personal telephone number(s), and email address(es) (including personal e-mail addresses to the extent they are available) for each member of the FLSA Collective; (b) authorizing notice, with a form of Consent to Join to the members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail, e-mail and via Web site (returnable via mail, e-mail, fax, or via website); and (c) authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day notice period.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adriana Paris, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 512-3210 Facsimile: (813) 512-3221 E-mail: Adriana.paris@jacksonlewis.com - and - Stephanie L. Alder-Paindiris, Esq. Amanda A. Simpson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Post Office Box 3389 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 246-3389 Facsimile: (407) 246-8441 E-mail: paindiris@jacksonlewis.com Amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: E-Z Pass Surcharge Illegal, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kathianne Boniellon, writing for New York Post, reports that the E-Z Pass fee is taking an unneccessary toll on drivers. A Brooklyn man claims the $6 annual surcharge E-Z Pass adds to monthly paper statements is against New York law. Forcing customers to pay for wanting to get their bills in the mail while providing digital options for free is unfair to those without internet, the state Legislature decided in 2011, according to Michael Rosenberg's Nov. 12 class-action lawsuit filed in Manhattan. Rosenberg, who is suing the MTA and the Port Authority, claims thousands of E-Z Pass customers still get mailed statements -- and are getting gouged for the privilege. The MTA and the Port Authority offer emailed statements, along with a bimonthly paper option, for free. The MTA declined to say how many customers get monthly statements in the mail and pay the fee. "This practice has been in place since 2001 for customers who want monthly paper statements to cover the cost of postage and processing," spokeswoman Abbey Collins said. As a rule we don't comment on pending litigation." The Port Authority also declined comment. A state source claimed the 2011 law which bars charging customers for paper statements doesn't apply to the government. "No person, partnership, corporation, association or other business entity shall charge a consumer an additional rate or fee . . . when the consumer chooses to pay by United States mail or receive a paper billing statement," the law reads. Rosenberg wants unspecified damages, restitution for himself and other customers, and a court order barring the annual fee. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Debiase Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Debiase, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00738-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought to secure redress for the debt collection practices utilized by the Defendant in connection with its attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiff that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sometime prior to May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt to Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. related to a personal credit card account in her name. The Debt arose out of a credit card account which the Plaintiff opened for her personal use. After the alleged Debt went into default, the Debt was allegedly sold by Capital One Bank to MCM. On June 13, 2019, MCM mailed or caused to be mailed a letter to the Plaintiff. The Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a letter in an envelope, which stated "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" on it--a language that is not allowed by the FDCPA, says the complaint. Ms. Debiase is an individual natural person, who resided in the City of Montclair, New Jersey. MCM is a purchaser of defaulted debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC 110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Phone: 201-873-7675 MOVING SOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of $10K Settlement in Arellano ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Lucy H. Koh grants the Plaintiffs' third motion for preliminary approval of the $10,000 settlement in the lawsuit entitled ALBERT ARELLANO, ROBERT GARZA, DANIEL CORONADO, JOSE DON CORONADO v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, a California Corporation MANAGED FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and CHARTWELL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a new York Corporation licensed to do business in California, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's (the "IWC") Wage Orders with respect to California non-exempt employees, who engaged in office moving duties with respect to these: (1) Failure to Pay all Wages Under the FLSA; (2) Failure to Pay All Wages Including California Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Pay All Wages at the End of Employment; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks; (6) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (7) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). Judge Koh rules that the case is preliminarily certified as a class action, for purposes of settlement only, on behalf of this class: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees, except for administrative office staff, who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California from July 17, 2013 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court." The class does not include Chartwell's employees, who were not placed to work for Defendant Moving Solutions, Inc. or Defendant Managed Facilities Solutions, LLC. The Court approves the Class Notice and the Claim Form. The Court also approves the Parties' proposed plan for distributing the Class Notice and the Claim Form as set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Court grants approval of the PAGA Settlement, including the settlement and release of the PAGA Claims, as defined in the Amended Settlement Agreement, and the payment of $10,000 from the Maximum Settlement Fund to resolve the PAGA Claims ("PAGA Payment"). The Settlement Administrator shall pay 75% of the PAGA Payment, or $7,500, to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency no later than ten (10) calendar days after the Funding Date. Twenty-five percent (25%), or $2,500, shall be distributed pro rata to all PAGA Releasees, based on the number of weeks worked by a PAGA Releasee, as a fraction of the total weeks worked by all PAGA Releasees. PAGA Releasees will not have the opportunity to opt out of, or object to the PAGA Payment and settlement and release of the PAGA Claims. The payment to each PAGA Releasee shall be made in the form of a check to be mailed to each of them no later than ten (10) calendar days after the Funding Date. Judge Koh appoints, for purposes of this settlement only, James Dal Bon, Esq., of Law Offices of James Dal Bon and Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq., of Law Offices of Booke & Ajlouny, LLP, as counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator. A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on April 30, 2020. The Court reserves the right to continue the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to Settlement Class members.[CC] MY PILLOW INC: Deutsch Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MY PILLOW, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-00318-SRN-ECW (D. Minn., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. The Defendant regularly employed the Plaintiff to work full-time, scheduling the Plaintiff and other similarly situated for 40 hours per week. However, the Plaintiff was subject to the Defendant's policy and practice of employing Customer Service Agents to work pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock time without compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the policy resulted in the Plaintiff and other employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, in violation of the FLSA, MFLSA, and MPWA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service Agent from December 2017 until October 2019. The Defendant most notably sells pillows. The Company also sells bed sheets, mattress toppers, dog beds, and towels in its retail stores throughout Minnesota as well as on its Web site, http://www.mypillow.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 612-436-1800 Fax: 612-436-1801 Email: jshannon@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com NAVISTAR INC: District Court Gives Final Approval to $135MM Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- On January 3rd, 2020, Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to the proposed settlement of multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of plaintiff truck owners and lessees alleging that Navistar, Inc. and Navistar International, Inc. sold or leased 2011-2014 model year vehicles equipped with certain MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter diesel engines that had a defective EGR emissions system. Judge Gottschall concluded that the parties' class action settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of plaintiffs' claims. Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D. Selbin, one of three co-lead counsel appointed by the Court to represent the plaintiffs, stated, "I am happy that after so many years, the many small business trucking companies affected can look forward to receiving compensation." The plaintiffs alleged that the trucks' defect caused breakdowns and engine damage. After nearly four years of discovery and more than a year of negotiations with the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached the class-wide $135 million settlement now approved by the Court. Further details and information on the claims process can be found on the settlement website at https://www.maxxforce11and13.com/. All owners and lessees of affected vehicles must file their claims by May 11, 2020. Adam J. Levitt of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, who also serves as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the litigation, noted, "I am pleased the court recognized the value of the settlement and result we obtained for the plaintiffs." The Settlement Class is defined as: All entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that vehicle was purchased or leased in any of the fifty (50) States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any other United States territory or possession. The Settlement provides that Class Members can choose from three forms of relief for each Class Vehicle they own(ed) or lease(d): up to $2,500 cash or up to $10,000 rebate on a new Navistar truck with mere proof of ownership/lease, or up to $15,000 for documented costs relating to the alleged defect. The Court noted that if the settlement had not been reached, the defendants planned to "vigorously contest" class certification, and that plaintiffs' chances at trial "would have been uncertain, as evidenced by the mixed record of prior jury verdicts regarding this same alleged defect." The Court also noted that the nationwide settlement would be superior to an alternative of many individual lawsuits, in part because class members who owned a small number of affected vehicles might not have suffered sufficient damages to justify the costs of expensive, expert-heavy litigation. The Court further wrote that if the smaller number of members of the proposed Class with higher potential damages won significant verdicts, they might deprive remaining Class Members of compensation. "The nationwide Settlement ensures that all Class Members will have the opportunity to be compensated," it concluded. Contact: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Website: www.lieffcabraser.com Tel: 415 956-1000 Email: jselbin@lchb.com [GN] NET 1 UEPS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:UEPS) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September 12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. UEPS failed to maintain effective controls on financial reporting. The Company misclassified its investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited. The Company's financial statements for fiscal year 2018 overstated its income. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about UEPS, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] NEW JERSEY: Court Seeks More Briefing on Greco's Injunction Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Brian R. Martinotti directs the parties in the lawsuit titled DAVID M. GRECO v. GURBIR S. GREWAL, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), to submit additional briefing relating to concerns on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification. Defendants New Jersey Attorney General Gubir S. Grewal, Jared M. Maples, and the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (collectively, the "State Defendants"), and the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, Jill S. Mayer, and Nevan Soumails (collectively, the "County Defendants") opposed the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction arguing, inter alia, that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claims. On January 15, 2020, the Defendants filed a Letter Request asking the Court to stay the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' Letter Request on January 16, 2020. Defendants Gloucester Township Police Department, Bernard John Dougherty, Nicholas C. Aumendo, Donald B. Gansky, William Daniel Rapp, and Brian Anthony Turchi (collectively, the "Township Defendants") filed correspondence joining and adopting the legal arguments advanced by the State and County Defendants in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, but declining to provide any briefing of their own. The Township Defendants did not make any filings relating to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. In his Order, Judge Martinotti rules that the parties are to submit additional briefing, limited to 8 pages each, on the Plaintiff's standing to bring a facial challenge to the ERPO Act. The Plaintiff will submit his initial brief by no later than January 24, 2020. The Defendants will submit their responsive brief by no later than January 31, 2020. The Plaintiff, if he so chooses, will submit his reply brief by no later than February 3, 2020. The Court notes that the term "ERPO Act" is well known to the parties and refers to the New Jersey Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 2C:58-20, et seq. To the extent the Plaintiff contends he is bringing an as-applied challenge to the ERPO Act, Judge Martinotti states that the Plaintiff shall address standing with respect to the as-applied challenge, and the parties are permitted an additional 8 pages to address this argument. Judge Martinotti grants the Defendants' Letter Request, and rules that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is administratively terminated without prejudice and may be refiled, if appropriate, following the Court's decision on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.[CC] NUTRIBULLET: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NutriBullet, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NutriBullet, LLC, Capital Brands, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00366 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Capital Brands is a business that sells the NutriBullet, accessories and related health products through direct sales and through retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com NUVANCE HEALTH: Wallace Files Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuvance Health. The case is styled as Leah Wallace, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nuvance Health and Health Quest Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00545 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020). The case type of the suit is stated as other. Nuvance Health is a not-for-profit health system in New York State's Mid-Hudson Valley region and western Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. The Sultzer Law Group 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com ONE PLANET: Hildre Sues Over Unwanted Calls That Invade Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- Don Hildre, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ONE PLANET OPS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00149-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020), accuses the Defendant of negligently and illegally contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. At no time did the Plaintiff ever enter into a business relationship with the Defendant nor did he provide his current cellular telephone number to the Defendant through any medium, the Plaintiff contends. He says he had never heard of One Planet or its subsidiary "HomeGain" prior to receiving the calls from them. The calls were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system." Despite his many attempts to ignore and avoid One Planet's calls, they continued to call him several more times on his cellular telephone, the Plaintiff avers. Through the Defendant's conduct, he alleges that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California. One Planet, through its various subsidiaries such as "HomeGain," attempts to solicit real property marketing services to real estate agents through the use of electronic communication and telephone calls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 14410 Via Venezia, #1404 San Diego, CA 92129-1666 Phone: (858) 299-5879 Fax: (619) 354-7281 Email: alex@madarlaw.net ONSTAR LLC: Court Won't Certify Classes & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KATHRYN M. ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. ONSTAR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1731 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal., Filed July 2, 2015), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order on Jan. 22, 2020: 1. denying as moot Plaintiff's request to exclude evidence; and 2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: Nationwide EFTA Class: "all persons in the U.S. who (a) activated a free trial of OnStar Telematics Service (OTS) during the Compliance Period; and (b) whose debit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014"; California EFTA Subclass: "all persons in California who (a) activated a free trial of OTS during the Compliance Period; and (b) whose debit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014"; Nationwide EFTA Subclass: "all persons in the U.S. whose debit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014 and who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance Period; or (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a new vehicle during the Compliance Period, but was not the buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to OnStar's Customer Service Record for the vehicle"; California EFTA Sub-subclass: "all persons in California whose debit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014 and who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance Period; or (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a new vehicle during the Compliance Period , but was not the buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to OnStar's Customer Service Record for the vehicle"; California Class: "all persons in California who (a) activated a free trial of OTS during the Compliance Period; and (b) whose debit card, credit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2011"; and California Subclass: "all persons in California whose debit card, credit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2011 and who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance Period; or (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a new vehicle during the Compliance Period, but was not the buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to OnStar's Customer Service Record for the vehicle." The Court says "In this case, it is undisputed that between 70 and 80% of the putative members of the Nationwide EFTA, California EFTA, and California Classes signed the Acknowledgment Form before subscribing to OTS, whereas Plaintiff did not. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is not typical of those putative members of the Nationwide EFTA Class, the California EFTA Class, and the California Class, who -- unlike Plaintiff -- may be bound to arbitrate their claims." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Automatic Renewal Law, the California Business and Professions Code, and the Unfair Competition Law. Defendant provides telematics services, including emergency and safety services and additional services for customers' convenience.[CC] PETER THOMAS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MILLER, et al., the Plaintiffs v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00698-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order Jan. 21, 2020, denying as moot without prejudice the motion to certify these classes: Water Drench Class: "all purchasers of the Water Drench Products in California since December 28, 2014"; and Rose Stem Cell Class: "all purchasers of the Rose Stem Cell Products California since December 28, 2014." The Court says the Plaintiffs' false advertising claims will proceed individually against PTR Labs because they can obtain their requested liability determination and statewide injunction against PTR Labs' challenged ads without certifying a class. The Court adds that the need for a class to distribute restitution will be addressed if the Plaintiffs succeed individually on the merits. Class certification does not advance Plaintiffs' claims for relief. Kari Miller reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Water Drench product after hearing an ad proclaiming the hyaluronic acid's exceptional water retention, believing the product a superior skin hydrator. Samantha Paulson reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Rose Stem Cell Gel Mask after seeing words like "bio repair," "rejuvenates," and "regenerates," concluding the product might help the appearance of a facial scar. The Plaintiffs contend both ads are false or misleading and filed suit under, among others, California's Unfair Competition Law.[CC] PFIZER INC: Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Zantac, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Maia Anderson, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed Jan. 2, 2020, accusing Pfizer of hiding the fact that Zantac, which it made from 2000 to 2006, contains a carcinogen, according to the New York Law Journal. Pfizer never listed N-nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA, a human carcinogen, as an ingredient in Zantac, the lawsuit alleges. Since September, numerous recalls have been issued for ranitidine products, the generic name for Zantac, after the FDA found unacceptable levels of NDMA in some ranitidine products. "While defendant represented that its Zantac formulation was safe for use, Zantac contains dangerously high levels of NDMA, rendering the product dangerous and unfit for human consumption," the lawsuit says, according to the New York Law Journal. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dana Viola, a New Jersey resident who took Zantac from 2000 to 2016 and stopped when several drugmakers began recalling the drug, according to the New York Law Journal. The lawsuit alleges breaches of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent concealment and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as restitution and attorney fees, according to the New York Law Journal. "Plaintiff is further entitled to statutory damages, damages for the injury sustained in consuming high levels of acutely-toxic NDMA, and for damages related to defendant's conduct," the lawsuit reportedly said. In a statement to the New York Law Journal, Pfizer said it has not sold Zantac in 13 years. "We believe this proposed class-action complaint is without merit and will respond to it in due course," the company stated. [GN] PRESSLER FELT: Nieto Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP. The case is styled as Claudia Nieto and Laura Traver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00410 (S.D., N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pressler, Felt & Warshaw offers a unique debt collection approach that balances the need to protect the rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. 591 Broadway, Suite 3a New York, NY 10012 Tel: (212) 966-5253 Fax: (212) 941-8566 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com PRO TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Seeks Final Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case titled FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. PRO TREE SERVICE, INC., and JOHN ANDREW BAIO, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-04503 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff filed with the Court an unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' stipulation of settlement. On July 30, 2019, the Court granted Preliminary Approval to the Parties' settlement of the Plaintiff's claims on behalf of himself and a class of thirty-five other similarly situated employees of Defendant Pro Tree Service, Inc. and John Andrew Baio, for claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 PROLOGIS INC: Garfield Agrees to Dismiss Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 17, 2020, that the plaintiff in Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky, et al., CA No. 1:20-CV-27, has agreed to dismiss the class action. On April 29, 2018, the company entered into a definitive agreement with DCT Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating Partnership LP ("DCT OP"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) DCT will merge with and into Prologis, with Prologis surviving the merger (the "Company Merger") and (ii) immediately prior to the effective time of the Company Merger, DCT OP will merge with and into the OP, with the OP surviving the merger. Several lawsuits were filed in federal court related to the Mergers: Shiva Stein v. Liberty Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03428, an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland; John Thompson v. Liberty Property Trust, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02230, a class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; and Berlinger v. Liberty Property Trust et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03562, an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally allege that Prologis and LPT violated federal securities laws by omitting from the Form S-4, and/or misrepresenting in the Form S-4, material information, rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient. Following the filing of the proxy statement/prospectus, three additional lawsuits were filed in federal court, in which the plaintiffs asserted claims generally similar to those asserted in the prior federal cases: McDonough v. Liberty Property Trust et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-21582, an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Hagerty v. Liberty Property Trust et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11679, an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and Yonchuk v. Liberty Property Trust, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00033, an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In addition on December 16, 2019, a putative class action captioned Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky et al., No. 2019-cv-9529-cv was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Defendants removed that action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on January 6, 2020, and plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 7, 2020, the same plaintiff filed a second putative class action captioned Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky, et al., No. 2020-cv-123-cv, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Defendants again removed that action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it was captioned Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky, et al., CA No. 1:20-CV-27 (the "Garfield Action"). The complaint in the Garfield Action alleges that the LPT board violated its fiduciary duties to LPT shareholders in connection with the proposed Mergers, and that Prologis aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein, the plaintiff in the Garfield Action has agreed to dismiss his action with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice as to the remainder of the purported class. The defendants believe that the lawsuits described above are without merit, and that no further disclosure is required under applicable law. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/2TZxylx. Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with a focus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based in San Francisco, California. PROVIDENT CREDIT: Morris Sues in California Over Warranty Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Provident Credit Union, et al. The case is captioned as TYROME MORRIS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PROVIDENT CREDIT UNION AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC19581616 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 18, 2019). The case involves warranty related issues. A case management conference is set on May 20, 2020. Provident Credit is headquartered in Redwood City and is the 21st largest credit union in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave, NW, 10th floor Washington, DC 20009 E-mail: admin@kalielpllc.com R & B CORP: Gregory Files Suit under FDCPA in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & B Corporation of Virginia. The case is styled as Heather Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R & B Corporation of Virginia doing business as: Credit Control Corporation and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00013-SEB-DML (S.D., Ind., Jan. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. R & B Corporation of Virginia is a Credit reporting agency in Newport News, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passiac St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 R&B WEALTH: Hobbs Sues Over Unsolicited Texts That Violate TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Hobbs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R&B WEALTH STRATEGY NETWORK, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00618 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. In September 2018, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message from the Defendant on his cellular telephone. This text message placed to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone was placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system." The Plaintiff was never a customer of the Defendant's and never provided his cellular telephone number the Defendant for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendant and their agent never received the Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages. The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen and resident of the State of Georgia. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' telephone calls violated the TCPA. The Defendant is a business financing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lohrke Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Lohrke moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled CLARENCE LOHRKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00099-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 contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Moves to Certify Class of Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD SOTELO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), moves for certification of this class: All consumers who purchased in California, either in a retail store, on Rawlings' website, or through a third-party website, any model of Rawlings non-wood adult or youth baseball bat during the applicable limitations period. Excluded from the Class are Defendant, including its corporate affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries; Defendant's employees, including officers and directors; and the Judge to which this case is assigned. Mr. Sotelo also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative and to appoint The Sultzer Law Group P.C. and McLaughlin & Stern LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and Shoop, A Professional Corporation and C. Mario Jaramillo, PLLC (D/B/A Access Lawyers Group) as Local Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on April 6, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Shoop, Esq. SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 350 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 330 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-1700 Facsimile: (310) 277-8500 E-mail: david.shoop@shooplaw.com - and - Thomas S. Alch, Esq. SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 620-9533 Facsimile: (310) 620-6330 E-mail: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com - and - Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 969-7810 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448-0066 E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com - and - C. Mario Jaramillo, Esq. C. MARIO JARAMILLO, PLLC (D/B/A ACCESS LAWYERS GROUP) 527 South Lake Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (877) 360-3383 Facsimile: (866) 686-5590 E-mail: cmj@access.law RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Montes Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Montes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICMARO HOSPITALITY, INC., a California Corporation; RLH CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation; RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02651 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover damages for illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and failure to maintain required records. According to the complaint, the Defendants required, permitted or otherwise suffered the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to take less than the 30-minute meal period, or to work through them, and have failed to otherwise provide the required meal periods to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants further violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, who were not provided with a rest period, in accordance with the applicable wage order--one additional hour of compensation at each employee's regular rate of pay for each workday that a rest period was not provided. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of California as a non-exempt employee. The Defendant is a California corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. Roy Suh, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Phone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Daniel@kicklawfirm.com Roy@kicklawfirm.com ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Wins Final Class Certification in Foster Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree issued a memorandum and order in the lawsuit entitled ASHLEY FOSTER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. ROBERT BROGDEN'S OLATHE BUICK GMC, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02095-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), granting the parties' Joint Supplemental Motion for Final Class Certification Approval. On December 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' Settlement Agreement as fair and equitable to all parties. The Court preliminarily approved the parties' request for $4,000 in attorneys' fees for the Plaintiffs' counsel, and a $520 service award to the Named Plaintiff. But, the Court says the parties' motion failed to provide sufficient information for it to make a final class certification finding. In its December 10, 2019 Order, the Court directed the parties to submit the information necessary for it to make this finding. The Court already has preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, the proposed attorneys' fees of $4,000 for the Plaintiff's counsel, and a $520 service award for the Named Plaintiff. The Court now grants the final missing piece: final collective action certification. The Court approves the parties' collective action settlement. Judge Crabtree directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close the case, and the parties are directed to submit dismissal papers within 15 days of the Order.[CC] SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Moves to Certify Class & Disability Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying their lawsuit styled MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK, and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:17-cv-02324-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs want the Court to determine that a class action is proper as to their causes of action under their constitutional and statutory claims detailed in the First Amended Complaint, including the Fourteenth Amendment rights and protections, the Eighth Amendment prohibitions on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against Unreasonable Seizure of Property, California Constitutional protections, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and related state law, as well as the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief in the action. The main class is defined as: All homeless persons who have been cited and/or subject to citation and/or arrest or are at risk of citation and/or arrest by the City of San Diego pursuant to the VHO and/or new VHO, San Diego Muni. Code Sections 86.0137(f); and the nighttime RV parking ordinance San Diego Muni. Code Section 86.0139(a) and/or who have had or are at risk of having a vehicle used as shelter towed and impounded by the City. The disability subclass is defined as: All Class members who have a "disability" as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12102. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as representatives of the main class and disability subclass, and to appoint the law firms of Fish & Richardson P.C.; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty; Disability Rights California; Disability Rights Advocates; Dreher Law Firm; and Bonett, Fairrbourn, Friedman & Balint PC, as class counsel for the main class and disability subclass. The Court will commence a hearing on February 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Amon, Esq. Madelyn S. McCormick, Esq. FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 678-5070 Facsimile: (858) 678-5099 E-mail: Amon@fr.com MMcCormick@fr.com - and - Maria Foscarinis, Esq. NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 638-2835 Facsimile: (202) 628-2737 E-mail: mfoscarinis@nlchp.org - and - Ann E. Menasche, Esq. Nichole Marie Mendoza, Esq. Lili Graham, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 530 B Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 814-8524 Facsimile: (619) 239-7906 E-mail: Ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org Nichole.Mendoza@disabilityrightsca.org Lili.Graham@disabilityrightsca.org - and - Benjamin Conway, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel St., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 E-mail: ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org - and - Stuart Seaborn, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org - and - Robert Scott Dreher, Esq. DREHER LAW FIRM 350 W. Ash, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-8828 E-mail: scott@dreherlawfirm.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. Patricia Syverson, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIED MAN & BALINT PC 600 West Broadway, #900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4292 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com SANOFI SA: Faces Dobson Suit Over Unsafe Levels of NDMA in Zantac ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antoine Dodson, Tabatha Lafferty, Ronnie Lawrence, Carrie Lupien, Darlene Maphis, Anthony Miliner, Thelma Myles, Chris Troyan, Connie McCartney, Sammy Bryson, Johnny Duyn, Ronald Ragan, Joletta Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANOFI S.A., SANOFI-AVENTIS US LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC, CHATTEM, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00356-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 22, 2020), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendants' design, development, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, advertising, promoting, labeling, distribution and/or sale of the drug Zantac, which contain unsafe levels of N-nitrosodimethlyamine. Zantac was developed by Glaxo--now known as GlaxoSmithKline, post-merger--and approved for prescription use by the FDA in 1983. The drug belongs to a class of medications called histamine H2-receptor antagonists (or H2 blockers), which decrease the amount of acid produced by the stomach and are used to treat gastric ulcers, heartburn, acid indigestion, sour stomach, and other gastrointestinal conditions. Zantac was the world's best-selling drug in 1988 and in the fiscal year that ended in June 1989, Zantac accounted for over half of Glaxo's sales of $3.98 billion. Even as late as 2016, Zantac was the 50th most prescribed drug in the United States with over 15 million prescriptions. During the time that the Defendants manufactured and sold over-the-counter Zantac in the United States, the weight of scientific evidence showed that Zantac exposed users to unsafe levels of N-nitrosodimethlyamine, commonly known as NDMA. Neither Sanofi nor Boehringer disclosed this risk to consumers on the drug's label—or through any other means--nor did the Defendants report these risks to the FDA, despite being on notice of the risk. N-nitrosodimethlyamine, commonly known as NDMA, is an odorless, yellow liquid. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NDMA is a semivolatile chemical that forms in both industrial and natural processes." NDMA can be unintentionally produced in, and released from, industrial sources through chemical reactions involving other chemicals called alkylamines. NDMA is unequivocally a harmful carcinogen. It has been known to be a byproduct of making rocket fuel in the early 1900s. Today it is used to induce tumors in animals for scientific testing purposes. The Plaintiffs took Zantac consistently as an anti-acid. The Plaintiffs represent individuals who have yet to be diagnosed with cancer as a result of taking Zantac, and seek medical monitoring and other related remedies in order to manage the consequences of their exposure. The Defendants concealed the Zantac–NDMA link from consumers in part by not reporting it to the FDA, which relies on drug manufacturers (or others, such as those who submit citizen petitions) to bring new information about an approved drug like Zantac to the agency's attention, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants ignored these regulations and, disregarding the scientific evidence available to them, did not report to the FDA significant new information affecting the safety or labeling of Zantac. Sanofi S.A. is a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris, France. The Defendants collectively manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed Zantac. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam William Krause, Esq. KRAUSE AND KINSMAN, LLC 4717 Grand Ave., Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-760-2700 Facsimile: 816-760-2800 Email: adam@krauseandkinsman.com - and - Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq. BABIN LAW, LLC 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 Email: steven.babin@babinlaws.com SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Class Certification Sought in Lewis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SENTRY ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00178-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the parties jointly move the Court to conditionally certify the case as a class action and approve their collective action notice. The Plaintiff filed his initial Motion for Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice and Memorandum in Support on June 5, 2019. He subsequently filed an Amended Motion on June 10, 2019. The Defendant filed its Response in Opposition on June 26, 2019, to which the Plaintiff issued a Reply in Support of his Amended Motion on July 10, 2019. On January 6, 2020, the Court issued an Order denying the Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment submitted at the onset of the lawsuit. In light of the denial, counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant conferred on January 8, 2020, to take part in a Rule 26(f) Planning Conference. During the conference, the Parties discussed conditional certification of the action and the terms of a collective action notice. The Parties came to an agreement that the lawsuit should proceed as a conditional collective action and have prepared a notice for the Court's approval.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Nick A. Nykulak, Esq. ROSS, BRITTAIN & SCHONBERG CO., L.P.A 6480 Rockside Woods Blvd. South, Suite 350 Cleveland, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 447-1551 E-mail: nnykulak@rbslaw.com - and - Brent Wilson, Esq. Douglas H. Duerr, Esq. ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP 800 International Tower 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 659-6700 Facsimile: (404) 222-9718 E-mail: bwilson@elarbeethompson.com duerr@elarbeethompson.com SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond. On April 8, 2019, Splond filed a class action lawsuit, naming ShiftPixy, Inc. and its client as defendants, claiming that he was scheduled to work for more than eight hours during 24-hour periods without being paid overtime, to which he was entitled. In addition, claimant is seeking waiting time penalties for the delay in payment. This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No liability has been recorded for this matter at this time. ShiftPixy said, "In the event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the Company's employment practices liability insurance. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor, human resources consultant, and administrator of workers' compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant, hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. SOUTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Infill and Pollution in Lake Cooper ------------------------------------------------------------- Lake Cooper Maintenance Fund, Inc. and Elliott Locklear, John Roe, and Jane Roe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. South Carolina Department of Transportation; County of Charleston; Coleman-Snow Consultants d/b/a Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering; HDR Engineering, Inc.; HDR Construction Control Corporation; HDR Infrastructure, Inc.; Contech Construction Products, Inc.; Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC, a QUICKCRETE Company; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Banks Construction Company; Davis & Floyd, Inc.; and John Doe 1-25, Case No. 2020-CP-10 (S.C. Com. Pleas., Charleston Cty., Jan. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendants' acts and omissions that result in the Plaintiffs being harmed by the improper flow of storm water through Lake Cooper because the Defendants' drainage improvements project thwarts the Lake's ability to function. Lake Cooper is suffering from infill and pollution that have resulted from the Defendants' failures to adequately engineer, design, permit, construct, and maintain changes in the course and volume of water affecting Lake Cooper that have impeded, and will continue to impede, the Lake's function and aesthetics, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs argue that due to the Defendants' acts and omissions related to these "drainage improvements," Lake Cooper's aquatic ecosystem and properties surrounding the Lake have been and are being harmed. The Defendants had a duty to design, permit, construct, repair, and maintain the Project in a workmanlike manner, with suitable materials, and in compliance with all industry standards, applicable statutes, and codes, and a duty to warn of known issues, which they have failed to do, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lake Cooper Maintenance Fund, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Transportation is a government agency and authorized regulatory department of the State of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin O. Lucey, Esq. Joshua F. Evans, Esq. Stephanie D. Drawdy, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A. P.O. Box 806 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 849-8400 Fax: (843) 849-8406 Email: jlucey@lucey-law.com jevans@lucey-law.com sdrawdy@lucey-law.com STARTEK USA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Epley Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Epley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STARTEK USA, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-06006-RTD (W.D. Ark., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty 40 per workweek. The Defendant also frequently and illegally deducted portions of Plaintiff's paycheck to pay for gift cards and other amenities for other employees, which the Defendant failed to reimburse, according to the complaint. As a direct result of the Defendant's policies, even though the Plaintiff and other customer service agents worked more than 40 hours in many weeks that they worked for the Defendant during time period relevant to this Complaint, they were not compensated for all of their overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's call center in Hot Springs as a customer service agent. The Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas, providing its clients with customer contact management services and operating, among other places, a customer service call center located in Hot Springs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in Fondren Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Troy Fondren and Cheryl Kobleski move the Court to certify the class described in their complaint captioned TROY FONDREN and CHERYL KOBLESKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00100 (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (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 Plaintiffs assert, 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 Plaintiffs tell 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 Plaintiffs assert 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 Plaintiffs assert that they are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. 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 Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com STATE COLLECTION: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY FONDREN, ET AL., the Plaintiffs v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00100-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Jan. 22, 2020, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On January 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint . At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. By this motion, the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. State Collection provides account recovery services. The company offers services to healthcare, financial, utilities, commercial and retail, and government sectors.[CC] STRANGE HONEY: Raw Honey Products Not 100% Pure, Greer Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GREER and JAMES REIMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, GARY STRANGE and FONDA STRANGE, owners and members, Case No. 3:19-cv-00518-PLR-DCP (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 17, 2019), is a consumer class action arising from Strange Honey's false and deceptive marketing and sale of certain honey products. Honey is a natural product produced by honeybees that is composed of water, various sugars, and a variety of desirable compounds, including antioxidants as well as minerals, proteins, enzymes, amino acids, and organic acids. According to the complaint, Strange Honey markets and sells its honey as being 100% raw honey from Tennessee. In fact, the honey that Strange Honey sells is not from Tennessee, is not raw, and is not 100% honey. The complaint adds that Strange Honey is not raw because it heats its products in order to make it easier to package and bottle. When it heats or cooks its honey, Strange Honey destroys the enzymes found in raw honey and for which raw honey is prized, the Plaintiffs contend. They add that Strange Honey purchases honey from a variety of sources outside Tennessee, including Vietnam, and that Strange Honey or one of its suppliers adds syrup to the honey as syrup is much cheaper than honey. Strange Honey's products are not as advertised and Plaintiffs bring this action both to recover the amounts they and the Class overpaid for Strange Honey's products and for an injunction requiring Strange Honey to stop cooking its honey, to truthfully disclose the source of its honey and to stop adding syrup to its honey products. Strange Honey operates a honey farm located in Del Rio, Tennessee. The Individual Defendants are owners and officers of the company also a member of the LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Al Holifield, Esq. HOLIFIELD JANICH & FERRERA, PLLC 11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201 Knoxville, TN 37934 Telephone: (865) 566-0115 E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com - and - Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq. KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES 1056 Gage St., No. 200 Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 446-2430 E-mail: heitzinger.law@gmail.com - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 371-4385 E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com SYMANTEC CORP: SEB Moves to Certify Class of Common Stock Owners ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION and GREGORY S. CLARK, Case No. 3:18-cv-02902-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff SEB moves the Court for an entry of an order: (i) certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a Class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded common stock of Defendant Symantec Corporation ("Symantec" or the "Corporation") during the period from May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby; (ii) appointing SEB as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") as Class Counsel. As detailed in the Complaint, SEB contends that the Defendants' scheme was straightforward--they misstated Symantec's financial results by artificially inflating revenues and misclassifying expenses. The Defendants' misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of Symantec's stock, and caused the stock price to plummet when the truth was eventually revealed. Indeed, during the Class Period, Symantec's stock lost over $7 billion in shareholder value due to the Defendants' fraud. SEB asserts that investors suffered enormous damages. Based on the Defendants' misconduct, SEB asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants Symantec and Symantec's former Chief Executive Officer Gregory S. Clark. The Court will commence a hearing on April 9, 2020, at 8:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] Plaintiff SEB Investment Management AB is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3472 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq. Jeremy Robinson, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. Julia K. Tebor, Esq. R. Ryan Dykhouse, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com jeroen@blbglaw.com jeremy@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com julia.tebor@blbglaw.com ryan.dykhouse@blbglaw.com SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPHEN POSSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-01599 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 30, 2019), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of: "all persons who are or have been employed as hourly employees by Synergy at any time since October 30, 2016." 2. directing Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's order, to identify and produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the first name, last name, last known street address, city, state, zip code, phone number (to the extent maintained), and dates of employment of all persons who have been employed by Defendant who fit the definition of the class; and 3. permitting the Plaintiff to send the agreed-upon Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit to all individuals on the Class List via regular United States Mail, and that consent forms postmarked within 30 days after the first mailing of the Notice will be considered timely. The Defendant is an hard drive supplier.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 E. Erie Street, Suite 210 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Sean M. Scullen, Esq. Steven M. Kruzel, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426 Telephone: (414) 277-5000 Facsimile: (414) 271-3552 E-mail: sean.scullen@quarles.com steven.kruzel@quarles.com TOP SURGEONS: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Faitro Counsel Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN FAITRO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. TOP SURGEONS, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B294666 (Cal. App.), Judge Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's order denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify class counsel and disgorge individual settlement payments. Since the inception of the action in February 2011, class counsel Alexander Robertson and John Walker have represented the putative Plaintiffs in the class action for false advertising and unfair competition arising from the Defendants' advertising campaign for "lap band" weight loss surgery. The class counsel concurrently represented the Individual Plaintiffs, several of whom are named class representatives, in eight individual cases against defendants alleging wrongful death and medical malpractice, among other claims. In March 2013, after insisting on a global settlement of the instant class action and all eight individual cases, the Defendants paid $2,173,001 to settle the eight individual cases. The payment of the class settlement was delayed pending preliminary approval by the trial court, which the parties jointly sought for two-and-one-half years and obtained in October 2015. Over this period, the Defendants made multiple representations to the trial court and class counsel that a $12 million litigation fund was set aside to fund settlement of all the individual cases and the class action. In 2018, five years after having agreed to (indeed insisted on) the global settlement and having supported the class counsel's requests for preliminary approval of the class settlement, the Defendants pivoted and twice moved to disqualify the class counsel and disgorge the individual settlement payments. The Defendants asserted that disqualification of the class counsel was required because the class counsel (1) had conflicts of interest and had failed to disclose their adverse representation to the putative class members seven years earlier, and (2) depleted a designated settlement fund which, it was finally revealed, never actually existed. The trial found that the Defendants failed to establish a basis for disqualification and denied both motions. Relying principally on Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v. Newton, the Defendants assert that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion by not disqualifying the Class Counsel and disgorging prior settlements, because all of the Class Counsel's clients in the nine cases against them settled simultaneously in 2013, were vying for the same $12 million litigation fund. Judge Willhite concludes that the trial court committed no error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was no conflict of interest in the class counsel's representation of the Plaintiffs in both the individual and the class actions. First, as Oxman conceded and notwithstanding the Defendants' contrary representations, the Defendants never created a "settlement fund." The money in the Shepard Mullin "litigation fund" was not deposited for the purpose of settling the class action. Moreover, the trial court's review of Oxman's accounting demonstrated that the Defendants paid the settlements for the eight individual cases two-and-one-half years before the October 2015 order granting preliminary approval. In sum, the money paid to settle the individual actions in 2013 did not deplete a nonexistent "settlement fund. There is also no indication that, at any point prior to Oxman's January 2017 deposition, the class counsel was or should have been aware that the Defendants had not created and sequestered the litigation settlement fund, let alone that the Defendants responsible for paying that settlement lacked ownership or control of the funds in the Sheppard Mullin account. Rather, the trial court and the class counsel relied on multiple representations by the Defendants' counsel that sufficient funds were set aside to pay a class settlement. Only after years of intensive litigation and discovery disputes did the class counsel or the court learn those representations were false: no settlement funds for this action actually had been set aside. These facts are quite different from the circumstances in Bridgepoint where the attorney's former and subsequent clients competed against one another for the same, existing $2 million pool. For these reasons, Judge Willhite affirmed the judgment. The Respondents will recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/4OwhED from Leagle.com. Top Surgeons, Inc., et al. are represented by Dmitriy Aristov, Esq. -- dima@aristovlaw.com -- ARISTOV LAW -- Mark Jubelt, Esq. -- mjubelt@msn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF MARK JUBELT. John Faitro, et al. are represented by John M. Walker, Esq. -- fugue@well.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. WALKER -- Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq. -- arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com -- ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES. TOTAL CARD: Faces Beltre Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA BELTRE A/K/A JESSICA PAULINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TOTAL CARD, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:19-cv-21485-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Dec. 17, 2019), is a state-wide class action filed on behalf of New Jersey consumers, who were sent by the Defendant debt collection letters and/or notices, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At some time prior to November 3, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation on a TEMPOE, LLC account. The Defendants caused to be delivered to the Plaintiff a letter dated November 3, 2019, which was addressed to her and sought a balance of $2,108.00, says the complaint. The November 3, 2019 letter falsely implied that TEMPOE obligation would continue to be reported to one or more of the credit reporting agencies beyond the 7 year reporting period, unless a payment was made, the Plaintiff asserts. Total Card knew or should have known that its actions violated the FDCPA, the Plaintiff contends. Total Card is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC 280 Prospect Ave., 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (877) 827-3395 Cell Phone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (877) 827-3394 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com TRIFECTA INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Trifecta, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trifecta, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00323 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020). Trifecta offers organic, fully cooked meal options at an affordable price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Tel: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com URBAN AIR PARK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elijah Lane, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. URBAN AIR PARK NORTH, LLC, and UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00086 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees routinely worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendants had a practice of not paying Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one and one-half times their regular rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather than pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one and one-half times their regular rate for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants simply paid its hourly employees their regular rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' indoor amusement center in San Antonio. UATP is a franchisor of indoor amusement parks throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com VCI CONSTRUCTION: Olivas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled Juan Olivas and Tanner Young, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. VCI CONSTRUCTION, LLC an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1800174, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 23, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00171-RGK-KK to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges these causes of action: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; and (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com - and - Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.442.4810 Facsimile: 415.442.4870 Email: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com VOCUS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $35 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Brendon Foye, writing for CRN, reports that Vocus has coughed up $35 million to settle a nagging class action from disgruntled shareholders over the company's earnings collapse in 2017. The saga stemmed from a profit downgrade in May 2017, when the telco slashed its earning guidance from an anticipated $430 – 450 million in EBITDA down to $357 – 365 million. Vocus said at the time that the downgrade was necessary due to a handful of factors such as lower-than-anticipated billings, higher service delivery headcount and higher expenses in group services. In response, Slater & Gordon commenced class action proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in April 2019, claiming there was a reasonable basis to believe that Vocus engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Vocus will fork out $3.5 million to the settlement, while the remaining balance is fully insured. The company pointed out that it made no admission of liability. "Vocus' board determined that the agreement to settle the class action was a commercial decision made in the best interests of the company and its shareholders," the company said in a statement issued on December 23, 2019. Vocus's shares were trading at $2.86 at the time of writing, down 10.3 percent compared to the same date 12 months prior. [GN] VOLVO CARS: El Aker Sues Over Missing Feature in XC90 R-Design -------------------------------------------------------------- Diyaeldeen El Aker, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a California Class v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of current and former owners and lessees of vehicles purchased in California from 2015 to 2019 distributed by the Defendants and having the model designation XC90 R-Design. The action arises from Volvo's alleged failure to provide a feature in its vehicles despite the feature being listed on the Monroney labels affixed to the vehicles at the time of sale. The 2014 to 2019 XC90 R Design vehicles were sold at a premium of several thousand dollars due to special features, including the missing feature at issue here. The missing feature is described by Volvo as "Power-Side Support Front Seats." The Plaintiff contends that Volvo is aware of the omissions and concealments; yet Volvo has failed to repurchase vehicles deceptively advertised as having this feature or to, otherwise, take corrective measures. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known of the omissions and concealments at purchase or lease, they would have not bought or leased the Class Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered injury-in-fact, have incurred damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Volvo's conduct. The Plaintiff is a California resident. On May 26, 2018, he leased from TKAT, Inc., d/b/a Volvo of Santa Monica, a new 2018 Volvo XC90 R-Design vehicle bearing VIN YV4A22PM9J1367832. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New Jersey, is the distributor of Volvo-branded passenger vehicles in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq. David Alan Cooper, Esq. Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, PC 1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 282-2000 Fax: (213) 282-3000 Email: robertm@mobasserilaw.com DCooper@MobasseriLaw.com BRohr@MobasseriLaw.com W.M. FARES: Redacted Crane Report Cause for Concern, Lawyer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anjuli Patil, writing for CBC News, reports that the law firm representing one of the businesses in a proposed class-action lawsuit stemming from a crane collapse in Halifax last fall has concerns over a heavily redacted engineer's report. "Fundamentally, this is about public safety," said Kate Boyle, Esq. -- kboyle@wagners.co -- a lawyer with Wagners Law Firm. Wagners is representing Thornblooms, one of the businesses affected by the crane collapse. "Right now, there are approximately two dozen cranes erected all over Halifax and the public wants to know why this happened and if this can be prevented in the future," Boyle said. On January 3, Global News released an engineer's report obtained under access-to-information legislation stating the crane that toppled in downtown Halifax during post-tropical storm Dorian malfunctioned months prior to the incident. Report confirmed rumour Boyle said prior to the report the law firm had only heard rumours about a past issue with the crane. She said the engineer's report confirmed it. Some of the data blacked out in the report included information on wind speed, the history of the crane and the history of inspections. The redactions in the report, Boyle noted, relate to law enforcement. She said that suggests there are likely other investigations into the cause of the collapse. An official cause for the collapse has yet to be made public. The defendants in the proposed class action suit include W.M. Fares Group, the developer of the building where the crane toppled, Lead Structural Formwork Ltd., and the Manitowoc Company, Inc. Lead Structural Formwork of Moncton owns the crane and Manitowoc, based in the U.S., is the crane's manufacturer. Boyle said all the parties have been served. She said a date has been set in February to meet with a judge and the defendants' counsel. Effect on case unclear Gavin Giles, Esq. the McInnes Cooper lawyer representing W.M. Fares Group, said January 4 he had been unaware of the report prior to media coverage. He said there isn't enough information in the redacted version of the report to make a full assessment of how those details might affect a class-action lawsuit, but he suspects it will have little impact.. "It deals with something which happened in May, prior to the crane being modified and a substantial component removed and a new top piece component installed," Giles said. "It also makes the point, accurately as I've indicated, that WM Fares didn't own the crane, it didn't operate the crane." [GN] WAWA INC: Faces Hans-Arroyo Suit over Data Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- TABITHA HANS-ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06127 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 26, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for security breach of Wawa's payment processing servers and payment card environment that was publicly disclosed on December 19, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Wawa's failure to implement adequate data security measures to protect its customers' sensitive Card Information directly and proximately caused injuries to the Plaintiff and class members. The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Wawa's inadequate data security measures and cavalier approach to data security. Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of security breaches involving payment card networks and systems, and even though these types of data breaches were and are occurring frequently throughout the restaurant and retail industries, Wawa failed to ensure that it maintained adequate data security measures to protect customer Card Information from criminals. As a direct and proximate result of Wawa's conduct and data security failures, a massive amount of customer information was stolen from Wawa and exposed to criminals. While Wawa has not confirmed the exact number of cards that were compromised, there are more than 850 locations on the East Coast which were all potentially affected. Victims of the Data Breach have had their sensitive Card Information compromised, had their privacy rights violated, been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identify theft, lost control over their personal and financial information, and otherwise have been injured. Wawa, Inc. operates a chain of convenience stores. The Company retails food, beverages, gasoline, and convenience products. Wawa serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com seh@chimicles.com mbd@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Bradley King, Esq. Henry Kelston, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com WELLS FARGO: Dore Sues Over Error in Mortgage Loan Modification --------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY DORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-01601-DSC (W.D. Pa., Dec. 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant miscalculated the Plaintiff's and Class members' net present values resulting in failure to offer a mortgage loan modification. Despite the Defendant's knowledge of the incorrect Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) modification calculations and the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) consent decree, the Defendant did not attempt to fix its software, says the complaint. The Defendant, rather than face further scrutiny from the OCC, concealed the software error and continued to erroneously deny hundreds of homeowners HAMP modifications. The HAMP was created by Congress as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program in response to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. HAMP was meant to help homeowners facing financial hardship by modifying the terms of the mortgage and providing subsidies to lower their mortgage payments to 31% of their monthly gross income. A homeowner can apply or be considered for a HAMP mortgage modification through their mortgage lender. It has certain requirements, including documented financial hardship and an ability to make monthly mortgage payments after a modification. The Plaintiff acquired her home in 2008 and subsequently entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant subject to a lien on the home of approximately $50,000. Her mortgage payments were approximately $500 a month. As a HAMP servicer, the Defendant was required to consider all eligible mortgage loans for a HAMP modification. HAMP uses a net present value (NPV) model to evaluate whether it is beneficial to modify a mortgage under the program (an "NPV positive" result), or whether it would be better to maintain the current terms of the mortgage (an "NPV negative" result). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant concealed from her and Class members that the NPV calculations were incorrect and that they were eligible for a mortgage loan modification. Instead, Defendant informed them that they were ineligible for a mortgage loan modification. As a result of the Defendant's fraudulent concealment, the Plaintiff and Class members were unable to modify their mortgage loans, which caused them to experience damages in the form of financial hardship, loss of equity in their homes, damaged credit, loss of time and money, and foreclosure, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff asserts that she and Class members are entitled to damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable practices, including actual, statutory, punitive, and/or trebled damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs to the extent permitted by law. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national bank with a main office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is wholly owned by Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware corporation and bank holding company with a principal place of business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com WILLIAM LYON: Stockholders Drop Suits over Taylor Morrison Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Lyon Homes said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 23, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the class action suits related to the company's merger with Taylor Morrison Home Corporation have agreed to dismiss their suits. On January 23, 2020, William Lyon Homes, a Delaware corporation, reached an agreement to resolve two purported stockholder class action lawsuits filed on behalf of Company stockholders in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Company stockholders in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Each of these lawsuits was filed following the announcement of the proposed combination of the Company and Taylor Morrison. The lawsuits, captioned Stein v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02380 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 10, 2019), Kent v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02276 (D. Del. filed Dec. 13, 2019), and McBride v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00056 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 10, 2020), challenge the adequacy of the disclosure contained in the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger on December 26, 2019. In order to resolve the Actions, the Company has agreed to make the following amended and supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") to the Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiffs in each of the Actions have agreed that, following the filing of the Current Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss the Actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice to all other members of the putative class. The resolution of the Actions will not affect the timing of the special meeting of the Company's or Taylor Morrison's stockholders, which are each scheduled to be held on January 30, 2020, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to the Company's stockholders in connection with the Merger. The resolution of the Actions is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any defendant in any such Action. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/30Yivdf. William Lyon Homes provides construction services. The Company designs and constructs residential properties. William Lyon Homes serves customers throughout the United States. The company is based in Newport Beach, California. WOOD GROUP: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Garza Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Garza, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WOOD GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00253 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly paying overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly disguised wage payments to the Plaintiff as reimbursed expenses. As a result, the improperly classified expense payments were excluded from the regular rate of pay of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime at the rate of time and one half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welder from September 2018 to January 2019. The Defendant is an engineering company that provides services to the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Appeal Ongoing in New Jersey Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action suit filed an appeal with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served with the Class Action Complaint. The Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on that analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and otherwise without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Also during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that two derivative complaints on behalf of the Company have been filed against the Company's Directors and Chief Executive Officer, President, Corporate Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and nominally against the Company, in Nevada state and federal court. The state court action subsequently was removed to federal court. The Derivative Complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company's officers and directors directed the Company to undertake an unlawful scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served with the Derivative Complaints. The Company has analyzed them and, based on its analysis, has concluded that the Derivative Complaints are legally deficient and otherwise without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint. Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the District of New Jersey. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order on February 7, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider was denied. On June 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that enables brands to transform their financial interactions with customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Paymobile Inc. [*] CCPA Class Action Leaves Consumers with Fewer Rights -------------------------------------------------------- Mark Raschby, writing for Security Boulevard, reports that one of the most significant aspects of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is the fact that consumers in California now have the right to sue companies for their losses resulting from data breaches. While this seems significant, in reality, it's not much of a change from existing law, and in fact, may ultimately leave consumers with fewer rights. The statute, California Civil Code Section 1798.150 (a)(1) provides: (a) (1) Any consumer whose . . . personal information . . . is subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business's violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures . . . may institute a civil action [t]o recover damages in an amount not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not greater than seven hundred and fifty ($750) per consumer per incident or actual damages, whichever is greater [or] Injunctive or declaratory relief. The CCPA is overall a fairly comprehensive data privacy statute, which requires companies that collect personal information about California residents to provide both opt-in and opt-out requirements for the use, disclosure and sale of that information; to provide certain rights of access to the data collected and to have the data collected to be deleted; and to be able to track how the data was accessed and used. However, for violations of the privacy requirements of CCPA, consumers cannot sue; in lawyer terms, the statute does not create a "private right of action" for violation of privacy. A consumer can complain to the California Attorney General, who can decide whether to sue, but they cannot (at least under the statute) sue for breach of privacy, even if the violation of privacy is knowing and deliberate. The CCPA also extends the obligation of companies that collect personal information to use reasonable security to protect that data from a data breach. If the company fails to implement or maintain such security, and this results in a data breach, then the consumer can sue -- for either $750 or actual damages (per incident), whichever is higher. Neat. But not really. First, the idea that if a company deliberately exposes your personal information you can't receive damages but if the company is the victim of a crime in which some criminal "steals" the data you can receive damages frankly rewards the wrong kind of behavior. So if you are merely negligent and someone steals personal data you can be sued, but if you are deliberate you can't -- at least not in a private right of action. OK, fine. But it's good that you can recover damages in a lawsuit at least, right? Not so fast, Kemosabe. Ask yourself whether, if you learned that your personal data was breached, you would be willing to file a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles in the hope that you might win the whopping amount of $750? I think not. The true power of the private right of action, both as a deterrent to negligent behavior and as a method of (slightly) compensating those damages, is in the class action lawsuit. When there's a data breach, lawyers swoop in and sue on behalf of all of the persons impacted. Since the CCPA provides for statutory damages, the class action lawyers are spared having to prove actual damages by each individual plaintiff. A breach with 100,000 subjects? Let's see . . . my math is not great, but 100,000 times $100 is $10 million, minimum. No Lack of Class (Action) So the CCPA seems to encourage the filing of class action lawsuits for violation of security provisions. However, companies trying to comply with CCPA inevitably will be rewriting their privacy policies to add CCPA language. While they are at it, their high-priced privacy lawyers are likely adding to the privacy policies a mandatory arbitration policy with a class action waiver. You see, a privacy policy, such as terms of service, can be a contract. If executed correctly, it can bind the consumer. What many companies are doing is requiring consumers who suffer damages or injuries as a result of the misbehavior of the company to forgo their god-given right to haul the offender into court, and instead to arbitrate their claims. While arbitration has some advantages to both consumers and companies (it's cheaper and faster) when it comes to consumer complaints, companies tend to prefer arbitration because there are fewer obligations of discovery (forcing the company to provide evidence), adverse decisions are not "precedential" (they don't bind other arbitrators) and, most importantly, companies force consumers to waive the right to pursue a class action. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal law supersedes state law with respect to the enforceability of these mandatory arbitration provisions and that an arbitration agreement can force consumers to waive their ability to pursue class action lawsuits. So if you have a privacy policy with a class action arbitration waiver and you suffer a data breach, consumers can each sue for $100. Well, technically, they can each demand an arbitration for $100. Individually. Not as a class -- if the privacy policy and arbitration agreement are written well and executed properly. If not, you're in trouble. Huuuge Mistake Recently, online gaming app developer Huuge attempted to get consumers to agree to both an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver through an online app. If you looked at the app description and clicked "more," you would see the notice, "Read our terms of use." This would include a URL the consumer could type into a browser. In the mobile app, the three-dot "kebab" in the upper right corner led to a drop-down menu that included an item, "Terms and Conditions" which then included the language that purported to be the arbitration agreement and waiver of class action. While courts have frequently enforced such "browsewrap" agreements, the federal appeals court in the Huuge case noted that users were not required to click "I agree" to assent to the waiver and had no actual or constructive notice that the site even had terms of use or a waiver of the right to sue. The court noted: "Only curiosity or dumb luck might bring a user to discover the Terms." This, the court found, was not sufficient to compel a waiver of the right to file a class action. So the better approach is to make the user actually read the waiver and actually click an "I agree" button, waiving their rights. (Maybe with language from Dante's Divine Comedy, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here?") So the Huuge court found that merely having some terms of service was not enough to mandate assent, but that a click "I agree" button would probably work. Big deal. Huuge? Nope. Not at all. 'Cause, let's face it: Consumers don't read privacy policies. Consumers don't read arbitration agreements. Consumers don't read class action waivers. They don't read them partly because they are boring. Partly because they are unreadable. Partly because they are not subject to negotiation. But mostly, in the words of Ellen Barkin in "Diner," "It's too complicated Schreevie . . .I just want to hear music, that's all." So consumers will click anything you put in front of them, 'cause "it's too complicated, Shreevie . . ." So CCPA provides for certain rights that will quickly and easily be removed by hordes of lawyers. Meanwhile, companies will continue to send updated privacy policies to consumers, some of which will invariably contain the poison pill of class action waivers. Advice: Read these things. Even though I know you won't. [GN] [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 --------------------------------------------------- Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th. Sponsorship opportunities are currently available. Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics. For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at colin@beardgroup.com Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo Past conference attendees have included professionals from these firms and universities: A.B. Data, Ltd. Aaron M. Levine & Associates Adams and Reese LLP Akin Gump Angeion Group Baker Botts LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Battea Class Action Services Bentham IMF Berger Montague Berkeley Research Group Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP Blank Rome LLP Bloomberg BNA Brian S. King PC Broadridge Financial Solutions BroadRiver Asset Management, L.P. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Burford Capital LLC Castro & Co Citi Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Columbia Law School Complex Settlements, P.C. Constantine Cannon LLP Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP Delaware Law Weekly Dentons Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Dundon Advisers LLC Edelson PC EJF Capital LLC Epiq Fagenson & Puglisi Fordham Law School FTI Consulting Garden City Group Garretson Resolution Group George Washington University Greenberg Traurig LLP Groia & Company Hagens Berman Hausfeld LLP Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Hochberg ADR Huntington Bank Ice Miller LLP John D Webb PA Johnson Fistel JTB Law Group Justice Catalyst K&H Integrity Communications Kazerouni Law Group, APC Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP King & Spalding Kinsella Media Kirkland & Ellis KPMG Kurtzman Carson Consultants Labaton Sucharow LLP Lavie Law Offices Law Offices Of Zorik Mooradian Leeds Brown Levi & Korsinsky LLP Levy Konigsberg LLP Lewis & Clark Law School Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP Liquid Claims Locke Lord LLP Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. Marron Lawyers, APC Maurice Blackburn McGuireWoods LLP Michigan Attorney General's Office Mighty MLex Market Insight Murphy, Falcon & Murphy New York Law Journal New York University Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Olumide Babalola LP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Pace University Pacer Monitor Paul Weiss Perini Capital Pomerantz LLP Postlethwaite & Netterville Proskauer Rose LLP PwC Reisman Karron Greene RG/2 Claims Administration Richman Law Group Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila Ríos Ferrer, Guillen-Llarena, Treviño y Rivera, S.C. Robins Kaplan LLP Rose Law Firm Rutgers University Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Seeger Weiss LLP Sheridan Ross P.C. Simpluris Sipree, Inc. Skadden Arps Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Stanley Law Group Susan J. Levy, Esq. The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, P.C. Therium Inc. Thompson Reuters TriState Capital Bank UBS United States District Court-Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court-Southern District of New York University of Connecticut Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Western Alliance Bank Winston & Strawn LLP Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Workman Law Firm, PC Yeshiva University Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ********* 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 2020. 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 ***