/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200205.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 26
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Over PFOA/PFOS Issue Removed to N.D. Ga.
500.COM LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
500.COM LIMITED: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
500.COM LIMITED: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
AAA CLUB ALLIANCE: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in Pa.
ACTION FINANCIAL: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
AIR CANADA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Dukes Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 3rd Cir. Decertifies Class in Break Time Suit
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Brailofsky Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
AMERICOR FUNDING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Leacock Says
ANCESTRY.COM: Ct. Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration Privacy Case
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Child Labor in Congo
ARAMARK CORP: $21MM Settlement Includes $5M in Lawyer Fees
AUSTRALIA: Top Court Decision Casts Uncertainty Over Class Actions
BANCO POPULAR: Soto-Melendez Sues for Breach of Contract
BETTS COMPANY: Mar Plaintiff Given More Time for Settlement Motion
BNY MELLON: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosures From Housing Crash
BOBOQUIVARIS LLC: Lahlou Sues Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
BRANDTECH360: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Arenas Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
CARLSBAD UNITED: Sued for Misclassifying Soccer Club Coaches
CHRISTMAS CITY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
COLOREDGE INC: Fails to Pay Properly Wages, Serrano Suit Alleges
COMENITY CAPITAL: Court Denies Remand of Gonzalez Suit
CONNECTICUT LAW: Class Action Cert. Sought in Thompson Suit
CONTRACT CALLERS: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Rozani Suit
CS WANG: CS Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
CURA PARTNERS: Pope Files Suit in Tort Class Action in Ore.
DEALER PREP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Cruz Claims
DIRECT RECOVERY: Coleman Sues Over Violations of TCPA and FDCPA
DOORDASH INC: Linn Seeks Minimum Wage & Reimbursement for Dashers
EQUIFAX INC: Class Action Settlement Could Top $500 Million
EVOQUA WATER: Fails to Pay Engineers OT Wages, Edmondson Alleges
EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
FARMERS GROUP: Class Certification Bid Tossed in Grigson Suit
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Vallejo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FLEUR MARCHE: Olsen Brings ADA Class Suit in NY
FLIGHT CENTRE: Mahoney Files ADA Class Action in Pennsylvania
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Notes of March 20 Deadline
GEICO GENERAL: Court Dismisses Count I in Rosenberg Insurance Suit
GEM RECOVERY: Nass Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: RICO Claims Revived in Avandia Drug Case
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over Geolocation Tracking Tossed
GREEN DOT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
GREEN POGO: Faces RICO Class Action in California
GREEN ROADS: Court Awaits FDA Ruling on CBD, Stays Class Action
GREEN THUMB: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HERBALIFE LTD: Court Signs Stipulated Protective Order in Lavigne
IKEA: Appeals Court Revives Customers' Class Action
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Mold Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Rejects Settlement in Bakhtiar Suit
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Bannister Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
JUUL LABS: Imani Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Oregon
KLOUDSCRIPT INC: Glen Ellyn's TCPA Claim Survives Dismissal Bid
KONA BREWING: $2.8MM Atty's Fees in Class Suit Deal Challenged
LEADPOINT INC: Illegally Sends Unsolicited Text Ads, Landy Says
MARRIOTT INT'L: City of Chicago Can Pursue Data Breach Claims
MELTWATER NEWS: Ceballos Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Luchetta Filed Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
METLIFE INC: Lawyer Booted From Class Action Wants $2.6MM Fees
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Ferrando Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
MJ PETER & ASSOC: Aguiar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MONARCH RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
MRS BPO LLC: Faces Ioane Suit Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations
MYLIFE.COM INC: Faces Dennis Suit in N.J. Over Violation of FCRA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abare Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Barrow Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bradford Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dworek Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Farnell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Forte Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hartford Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Humphrey Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kolak Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patterson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Pope Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Quinney Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zarczynski"
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Charman Sues Alleging Invasion of Privacy
PEDERSEN COMPANY: Class Cert. for Settlement Purposes Sought
PINELLAS COUNTY: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Burton"
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid in Fox Suit Granted in Part
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
PROCOLLECT INC: Mecca Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
PURDUE PHARMA: Court Remands DCH Case to Conecuh County Cir. Ct.
RC HOTELS: Gomez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Penalties
RIPPLE LABS: Judge Prepares Decision in XRP Class Action
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Helping Hands Sues for Breach of Contract
STARZ ENTERTAINMENT: XL Says Company Owes $10MM for Settlement
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Hahn"
SUMMIT HEALTH: Braunshtein Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
TAKEDA PHARMA: Class of Patients Satisfies RICO Suit Requirement
TANNERS II INC: Fleming Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
TEXAS PREMIER: Clayton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TEXAS: TDCJ Sanctioned for Violating Prison Temperatures Settlement
TRAVELCENTER INC: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
UB TECHNOLOGY: Elhendi Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Calls
UBER: Won't Be Forced to Treat California Drivers as Employees
UNION RAILROAD: Improperly Terminates Aged Workers, Marsh Claims
US STEEL: Attys. Seek Claimants Qualified to Get Settlement Payment
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Leads Class Action Over Faulty Sunroof
WHATSAPP INC: Illegally Sends Unwanted Automated Texts, May Says
WHELAN SECURITY: Faces Goto Suit in California Superior Court
WYNDHAM VACATION: Violated Consumer Protection Laws, Carroll Says
ZUMPER INC: Court Compels Arbitration in Gonzalez-Torres FRCA Suit
*********
3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Over PFOA/PFOS Issue Removed to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled JARROD JOHNSON individually, and on Behalf of a
Class of persons similarly Situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No.
19CV02448JFL003 (Filed Nov. 26, 2019), was removed from the Georgia
Superior Court, Floyd County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 10, 2020.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00008-AT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.
The case is a class action brought on behalf of individual
Plaintiff and Class Representative Jarrod Johnson and a class of
people similarly situated, who have been damaged and continue to be
damaged due to the intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, and
negligent release of toxic chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), and related
chemicals that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS, precursors to PFOA and
PFOS, and related chemicals from the Defendants' manufacturing
processes and facilities. By such wrongful acts and omissions, the
Defendants have created and maintained a continuing public nuisance
causing harm and injury to the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
Members, says the complaint.
The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryals D. Stone, Esq.
William S. Stone, Esq.
STONE LAW GROUP
5229 Roswell Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: 404-239-0305
Facsimile: 404-445-8003
Email: ryals@stonelaw.com
billstone@stonelaw.com
- and -
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, Esq.
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Brett C. Thompson, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205 328-2200
Facsimile: 205-324-7896
Email: rlutz@corywatson.com
jtapley@corywatson.com
bthompson@corywatson.com
500.COM LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased 500.com Limited (NYSE: WBAI)
securities between April 27, 2018 and December 31, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). 500.com investors have until March 16, 2020
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
On December 31, 2019, the Company disclosed an internal
investigation regarding alleged illegal money transfers after one
of its former directors was arrested. 500.com also announced that
its Chairman of the Board of Directors resigned and that its Chief
Executive Officer would "step aside" from his position until the
investigation concluded.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.07, or over 12%, to
close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a
bribery scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor
in a bid to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (2) that
consequently, 500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery
laws and its Code of Ethics; and (3) that as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased 500.com securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 16, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
Contact:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
Website: www.glancylaw.com
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
[GN]
500.COM LIMITED: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of 500.com Limited (NYSE: WBAI) between April 27, 2018
and December 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for 500.com investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the 500.com class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1750.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) 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a bribery
scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor in a bid
to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (2) consequently,
500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery laws and its Code
of Ethics; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 16,
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-1750.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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]
500.COM LIMITED: 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 500.com
Limited (NYSE: WBAI) for violations of Sec. 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 April 27,
2018 and Dec. 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 2020.
The Firm also encourages 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 the firm 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. 500.com executives and others within the
Company engaged in a bribery scheme to pay off Japanese officials
with the goal of winning the bid for a casino resort in Japan. The
Company violated both Japanese anti-bribery laws and its own Code
of Ethics. 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 500.com, 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
Website: www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
brian@schallfirm.com [GN]
AAA CLUB ALLIANCE: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AAA CLUB ALLIANCE,
INC. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA CLUB ALLIANCE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00549-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 31,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
AAA Club Alliance, Inc. provides free insurance quotes for your
auto, home, motorcycle, watercraft, RV and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
ACTION FINANCIAL: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Wyonia Cox, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Action
Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10260-GAD-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Action Financial Services, LLC (AFS) recoups money for the US
Department of Education (ED). .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
AIR CANADA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Dukes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARY DUKES, the Plaintiff, v.
AIR CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-2176-T-60JSS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order on Jan. 30,
2020:
1. affirming and adopting Judge Julie S. Sneed's Report and
Recommendation into the Order for all purposes, including
appellate review;
2. granting "joint motion for final approval of class action
settlement" and approving settlement agreement;
3. granting "Plaintiff's unopposed motion for award of class
representative service award, and for Attorneys' fees and
costs";
4. granting Class Counsel award of $33,333.33 in reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, which is equal to 33% of the
Settlement Fund;
5. granting Plaintiff Mary Dukes a service award of $5,000;
6. On or before February 28, 2020, directing the Parties to
submit a proposed stipulated form of final judgment or
stipulation of dismissal.
The Court agrees with Judge Sneed's factual findings and legal
conclusions, calling them "detailed and well-reasoned," including
that the purported class meets all of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)
prerequisites and satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). The Court also held
that the notice to the class was reasonable and the best notice
practicable under the circumstances; and that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court also agrees with Judge Sneed that an award of 33.3% of
the Settlement Fund for attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable
under the circumstances of this case, and that an incentive award
of $5,000 to Ms. Dukes as the Representative Plaintiff is
reasonable, consistent with the incentive awards approved in other
class actions in this district, and adequately recognizes her
efforts to obtain recovery for the Settlement Class.
Air Canada is the flag carrier and the largest airline of Canada by
fleet size and passengers carried.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 3rd Cir. Decertifies Class in Break Time Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Jones, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
breaking up a class of American Airlines employees who say the
company forces them to work through their breaks, the Third Circuit
ruled that the workers failed to show that their situations were
uniform.
This decision reverses a class certification issued for the New
Jersey lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Jose Linares. The class is
led by Daniel Ferreras and Edwin Gonzalez -- two clerks responsible
for towing airplanes into and out of hangars, providing water and
lavatory services, and loading baggage on and off airplanes at
Newark Liberty International Airport. The pair filed the overtime
lawsuit in 2016.
Represented by Lee Shalov of McLaughlin Stern, they claimed the
airline's timekeeping system did not allow employees to be paid for
overtime -- paying them only for the hours they were scheduled to
work, rather than the time they spent actually working.
Following arguments in October, the court of appeals found several
problems with the class-certification decision. In particular, the
court took issue with the failure to resolve conflicts in the
evidence presented by the employees that should otherwise
demonstrate commonality. For instance, according to testimony, not
all employees in the class began working immediately after clocking
in -- some talked with co-workers or watched television.
"The record evidence here . . . demonstrates that employees were
not always working while clocked in and there was substantial
variability in what they were doing, even if some of it could be
called work," U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote for the
three-judge panel.
Judge Jordan also said the evidence presented shows that not all
employees worked during meal breaks.
"Thus, whether they were actually working pre- and post-shift is an
open and inherently individualized question," Judge Jordan
continued.
The plaintiffs will thus have to offer individualized proof to show
that they were actually working during the various time periods at
issue, the court found.
U.S. Circuit Judges Luis Felipe Restrepo and Michael Chagares
rounded out the panel.
American Airlines counsel Anton Metlitsky of the O'Melveny law firm
did not immediately return an email seeking comment, nor did class
counsel Shalov.
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Brailofsky Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICAN RECOVERY
SERVICE INCORPORATED, et al. The case is styled as Moshe
Brailofsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01086 (D.N.J., Jan. 31,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
American Recovery Service Inc. or ARSI is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
AMERICOR FUNDING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Leacock Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Leacock, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, and the general public v. AMERICOR FUNDING, INC.; and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01127593-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
wrongful actions, including failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages, failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to
provide proper wage statements and making unlawful deductions from
wages that were not paid upon separation.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and Class Members worked well over 8
hours in a day and 40 hours in a workweek, and were frequently
compelled to work on weekends in addition to the workweek. The
Defendants required the Plaintiff and Class Members to work but did
not pay them for all hours worked on any given day or in any given
workweek, either by failing to pay them minimum and overtime wages,
failing to pay them for missed meal and rest breaks, and/or
engaging in illegal deductions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.
Americor is a technology and lending company. Americor is a
California corporation authorized to do business in the state of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: (949) 270-2798
Fax: (949) 209-0303
Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Ct. Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration Privacy Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California
granted Ancestry.com's motion to compel arbitration in a putative
class action brought by account holders who claim the company
released their private health information to third parties without
authorization.
A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration is
available at:
https://is.gd/s9WApe
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Child Labor in Congo
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Dell, Tesla and others knowingly profit
from brutal abuse of young children in the Democratic Republic of
Congo to mine cobalt for lithium-ion batteries used in their
electronic devices.
A copy of the Complaint is available at:
https://is.gd/2ghx4t
ARAMARK CORP: $21MM Settlement Includes $5M in Lawyer Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Harold Brubaker, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that new federal court filings in Philadelphia provide details on
Aramark's $21 million settlement of lawsuits brought by managers
who were denied their 2018 bonuses after the Philadelphia
food-service and uniform giant changed the rules on how the
incentive payments would be calculated without telling them.
The notice of settlement, which explains the calculation of
individual payments, must be approved by U.S. District Court Judge
John R. Padova, before payments can be made. A date for a hearing
on the settlement has not yet been set.
The aggregate amount expected to be paid to an estimated 4,500
lower-level managers is $15.5 million after the four law firms
involved in two separate proposed class actions get their cut. The
settlement calls for the law firms to collect $5.25 million (about
25 percent of the total) plus $50,000 for expenses. In certain
types of class-action settlements, the lawyers' cut is 33 percent
of the total payout.
The two lawsuits, both filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Aramark violated numerous
state and common laws when it did not pay the bonuses. In agreeing
to the settlement, Aramark did not admit that it violated any
laws.
"We believe it is in the best interest of our employees and the
company to put this matter behind us," Aramark said in November
when the outline of the agreement was announced.
In rough terms, the individual payments will amount to the
difference between the manager's expected fiscal 2018 bonus and the
amount of the "special recognition award" the manager received.
Those special onetime payments ranged from $5,500 to $27,500 for
different management tiers. The money for those payments came from
money that Aramark saved as a result of the corporate tax cuts
under 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Managers in what Aramark calls bands 5 to 8 will receive an
additional 6.5 percent of their anticipated fiscal 2018 bonus, the
settlement says. All managers subject to the settlement, even if
their onetime "special recognition award" was bigger than the bonus
they thought they had earned, will receive an additional $250.
Special provisions were made for 41 managers who worked for
Aramark's health-care technology division, which it sold in
November for $293.7 million. They will receive an additional $2,000
each to compensate for canceled stock compensation.
The settlement does not cover managers who were no longer employed
by Aramark at the end of its 2018 fiscal year, Sept. 27, 2018.
The bonus controversy contributed to the abrupt retirement last
year of Aramark chief executive Eric Foss, who decided not to pay
2018 bonuses to front-line managers because the company did not
meet a profit target set by the board of directors. Employees found
it especially egregious as Foss — who earned $16 million in 2018,
including $2.6 million in incentive bonus — touted record
revenues and profitability for the year ended in September.
Managers were furious at Foss because they were not told at the
beginning of the fiscal year that a company-wide profit target
would be a factor in their bonuses. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Top Court Decision Casts Uncertainty Over Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Turner, writing for ABC Net News in Australia, reports that
in Perth's north, representatives of Shine Lawyers are talking to
locals, explaining their planned class action against the Federal
Government, with the hope of signing up the 500 Bullsbrook
landowners who are eligible to sue over their property value losses
due to contamination by toxic firefighting chemicals (known as
PFAS) used at nearby RAAF Pearce air base.
Bullsbrook is the first stop for Shine as it works its way around
the country.
It is a markedly low-key and grassroots approach by the law firm --
and one which the approximately 40,000 people around Australia who
are eligible to join the class action can expect to experience.
It is also a very necessary strategy to keep this class action
alive, with a High Court decision in December creating uncertainty
about how class actions are funded.
Legal experts say it is likely many other law firms looking to file
class actions will also be approaching potential clients this way
-- and it is important that if this is you, you understand your
rights.
The High Court decision cast uncertainty over the use of common
fund orders, which are a mechanism for lawyers and litigation
funders to be paid their fees for a class action.
It may sound like an irrelevant legal technicality but these orders
have a big impact on whether a litigation funder, which bears the
upfront costs, decides to invest in a particular class action or
not.
These orders give lawyers and litigation funders the confidence at
the beginning of the legal process that they can take their fees
from the total settlement from a class action, regardless of
whether claimants have signed a funding agreement with them.
As a result, there was previously little pressure to sign up big
numbers of people to class actions to ensure they proceeded.
But now, there is some uncertainty around this particular PFAS
class action, which has been billed as Australia's biggest ever,
involving eight sites across Australia.
Shine's plan to file the class action by last Christmas was
derailed by the High Court's decision and Shine now needs to
reassure its litigation funder LCM -- which bears the upfront costs
of the legal action -- the action is financially viable.
It is a setback for the firm, which made a high-profile
announcement, using the star power of environmental campaigner Erin
Brockovich, that this class action was going ahead just three
months ago.
Shine is trying to get as many people as possible to sign two
agreements, one appointing Shine Lawyers as its legal
representative and the other committing them to paying a percentage
of any successful settlement to the litigation funder.
Shine's head of class actions Jan Saddler said the High Court
decision had led to the company returning to the practice of
building some class actions through a mixture of grassroots
campaigning and community gatherings, like in Bullsbrook.
"The High Court decision does not impact the merit of this PFAS
class action and we will continue to fight for compensation on
behalf of residents whose property prices have plummeted as a
result of environmental contamination," she said.
Shine can count Mr Butland and his fellow Bullsbrook residents Gary
and Karen Breadsell as successes after they signed up yesterday.
They all say their land has been tainted by the "stigma" of
contamination, caused by the Department of Defence's use of toxic
chemicals and through no fault of their own.
"I never thought we would be put in this position to have to sue
our own Government to get them to wake up," Mr Butland said.
One of the class action's lead applicants, Reannan Haswell, said
she was sick of the Federal Government's lack of action in funding
long-term solutions to Bullsbrook's safe water supply problems and
providing compensation for a drop in land values.
"We have lost our financial ability to leave [our property]," she
said.
"Legally and morally, we can't sell it."
What should you know before signing up to a class action?
Class actions are broadly considered to be a cost-effective and
efficient way of people being able to access justice.
Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Gerard Brody said class
actions were also a lower-risk option, compared to individuals
taking their own legal action.
But he said there were three important things anyone thinking of
signing up to a class action should be aware of.
First, they should assess if the fee to be paid to the litigation
funder was fair.
Mr Brody said a fee of between 20 and 25 per cent of the client's
settlement was common.
"40 per cent is not particularly fair," he said.
Second, you do not have to sign up to an open class action, unlike
with a closed class action, and you can opt out during the court
process.
Open class actions, like the one involving Bullsbrook, involve a
lead plaintiff bringing the action on behalf of all people who
could potentially be affected but have not necessarily signed an
agreement.
Third, you should ask how conflicts of interest were managed, Mr
Body said.
This could include ensuring that decision making around making a
settlement was taken after getting an external legal opinion.
"There's always a conflict of interest between lawyers and their
clients," he said.
"For example, a lawyer might decide to settle [the class action] so
that they can get paid."
Law professor Michael Legg, from the University of New South Wales,
recommended anyone concerned about conflicts of interest to get
independent legal advice.
He said it was important to remember you were signing an agreement
with lawyers who had a financial interest in the class action
proceeding.
"They are being asked to sign these things by people who will
benefit from them signing," he said.
Professor Legg argued the High Court's ruling had made class
actions more difficult for plaintiffs.
He said common fund orders had allowed the court to review the fees
that plaintiffs would pay, with a trend of courts reducing the fees
in their favour.
The new pressure on law firms to sign people up to class actions to
ensure funding meant that plaintiffs often had to make a decision
to commit at an earlier stage and perhaps before they were
convinced it would be successful.
"You think you have a good claim but you don't know," he said. [GN]
BANCO POPULAR: Soto-Melendez Sues for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico. The case is styled as Pedro Soto-Melendez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01057 (D.P.R.,
Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Breach of Contract.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico is a financial institution belonging
to Popular Inc., the country's major financial holding. It is
engaged in providing retail and commercial banking services to
individuals, corporate clients and small and medium-sized
enterprises in Puerto Rico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Indiano-Vicic, Esq.
Indiano & Williams, PSC
207 Del Parque Street, Third Floor
San Juan, PR 00912
Phone: (787) 641-4545
Fax: (787) 641-4544
Email: david.indiano@indianowilliams.com
BETTS COMPANY: Mar Plaintiff Given More Time for Settlement Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an order that extended the deadline to file a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Parties' Settlement in the
case captioned JOSEPH MAR, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BETTS COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:19-cv-00786-LJO-BAM. (E.D. Cal.)
through Jan. 31, 2020.
A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxxr5ntp from Leagle.com
Joseph Mar, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by -
edwin@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, Joanna Ghosh -
joanna@lfjpc.com - Lawyers For Justice, PC, Amir Nayebdadash -
amir@protectionlawgroup.com - Protection Law Group, LLP & Heather
Davis - heather@protectionlawgroup.com - Protection Law Group,
LLP.
Betts Compay, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Ian Blade Wieland -ian@sw2law.com - Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC,
Amanda Michelle Kjar - amanda@sw2law.com - Sagaser, Watkins &
Wieland PC & Howard A. Sagaser -has@sw2law.com - Sagaser, Watkins &
Wieland, PC.
BNY MELLON: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosures From Housing Crash
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Hudson, writing for The Real Deal, reports that Bank of New
York Mellon faces a reckoning from residential foreclosure cases in
New York that date back to the subprime mortgage crisis.
The bank - along with its debt-collector partners Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing and law firm McCabe, Weisberg & Conway - are
accused by a class-action lawsuit of systematically trying to
foreclose on mortgages after the state's six-year statute of
limitations had passed.
Mark Anderson, Esq. an attorney at the Queens-based law firm
Shiryak, Bowman, Anderson, Gill and Kadochnikov, which filed the
case, said his firm noticed an uptick in foreclosure cases
initially filed in the wake of the subprime crisis more than a
decade ago and now being revived, despite the statute of
limitations expiring.
"I have over 500 cases that are dealing with this issue - and
that's just my firm," said Anderson. He believes thousands of
homeowners could qualify to be part of the suit if it gets
class-action status.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in November. The defendants are
accused of resurrecting foreclosure actions that have expired and,
in doing so, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
which prevents debt collectors from using false and deceptive
representations.
Anderson said his firm filed the suit now because of recent federal
court rulings that he believes are favorable to holding to
foreclosure firms, servicers and banks liable for violations of the
act.
The law awards consumers statutory damages of $1,000 per violation,
attorneys' fees and - in some cases - damages for proven emotional
or physical harm.
Bruce Bergman, Esq. -- b.bergman@bhpp.com -- a partner at Berkman
Henoch who specializes in representing lenders and servicers in
mortgage foreclosures, described a statute-of-limitations response
to debt collectors as "deadly to lenders."
In a November alert to potential clients, Bergman lamented the
state of affairs: "How many ways can borrowers vanquish lenders
with a statute-of-limitations defense?" he wrote. He declined to
comment on Anderson's suit.
Anderson said that while he's won several cases for borrowers by
arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, the lender and
servicing firms usually succeed because borrows don't know about
the statute of limitations.
"Nine times out of 10, no one's going to say a thing," he said.
"One time out of 10, a person like me comes in and says this is
beyond the statute of limitations."
The attorney said his firm's caseload largely consists of
foreclosure and consumer-defense cases.
The class representatives for the suit are a Bronx couple, Alfred
and Olivia Del Rio, ages 71 and 65, respectively. They bought their
home in North Riverdale in 1997 and twice paid off mortgages before
taking out a larger loan of $536,000 against their property. It was
bundled into a pool of mortgage-backed securities sold or assigned
to Countrywide Financial Corporation that was ultimately put into a
trust with BNY Mellon as the trustee.
When the Del Rios defaulted on their payments in October 2008, BNY
Mellon moved to foreclose on the property. The action was
voluntarily dismissed in August 2015.
Four years later, last August, BNY Mellon commenced a new
foreclosure action against the Del Rios, the complaint states.
Anderson and his team sued in response, contending that the statute
of limitations to collect on the Del Rios' mortgage expired in
2015.
BNY Mellon declined to comment. Shellpoint, McCabe and Bank of
America did not respond to requests for comment, but the law firm
filed a motion to dismiss the suit last week.
Anderson said he has discussed settling with his counterparties,
but he and his clients don't plan on backing down.
"This is something that may end up going a long way just because we
do think that there are a lot of people getting taken advantage
of," he said. [GN]
BOBOQUIVARIS LLC: Lahlou Sues Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHALID LAHLOU, individually, on behalf Case of all others similarly
situated, and as a representative aggrieved employee, and DAVINA
LIVARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOBOQUIVARIS LLC, d/b/a Bobo's Restaurant, aka Bobo's,
aka Bobo's Steakhouse, and d/b/a Bobo's Burger Bar; ANDREA
FRONCILLO; and DOES 1 to 30, Case No. CGC-20-582158 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought for violations of
the California Labor Code, and for wage and hour violations under
the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants did not want to pay
premium wages (for missed meal and rest breaks) to the employees of
Bobo's Restaurant. Instead of simply permitting their employees to
take meal and rest breaks or paying premium pay when they were not
able to take those breaks, the Defendants achieved their goal by
ignoring their employees' time records and/or forcing them to sign
false waivers and assuming that all employees always were able to
take their meal and rest breaks when they knew this was not true,
the Plaintiffs allege.
In addition to denying their employees proper meal and rest breaks,
the Defendants engaged in numerous other Labor Code violations,
including engaging in false record-keeping practices, the
Plaintiffs also allege.
Khalid Lahlou worked as a server at Bobo's from June 2016 to
September 2019. Davina Livares worked as a hostess at Bobo's and as
a cocktail waitress and server at Bobo's Burger Bar from August
2018 to August 2019.
The Defendants own and/or operate two restaurants in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: 415-398-0900
Facsimile: 415-398-0910
E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
bsc@phillaw.com
BRANDTECH360: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, James Schaffer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BRANDTECH360, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00902 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in
negligently contacting the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the
Plaintiffs' privacy.
The Company used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its call to the Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services,
according to the complaint. The calls constituted calls that were
not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiffs assert that the Company
did not possess their "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.
Based on the Plaintiffs' experiences of being called by the Company
after being on the National Do-Not-Call list for several years
prior to its initial calls, and at all relevant times, the Company
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.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Los Angeles County,
California.
BRANDTECH360 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
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Arenas Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA A. ARENAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC.; and DOES 1 to
50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV01232 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 10, 2020), seeks to recover penalties pursuant to California
Labor Code arising from the Defendants' failure to pay wages and/or
overtime wages.
According to the complaint, on a regular and consistent basis, the
Company has had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or
overtime to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all
hours worked. The Defendant failed to compensate them for the time
attending a pre-boarding session, which included a pre-employment
physical and a background check/Live Scan with the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department, that was required as a condition of
employment. As such, the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were
not paid for all hours worked at the proper rate, says the
complaint.
Ms. Arenas is an employee of California Commerce.
The California Commerce offers poker tables, dining establishments,
pool and sundeck, banquet rooms, shops, and entertainment services,
as well as provides massage, facials, pedicure and manicure, hair
cut and styling, and waxing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com
CARLSBAD UNITED: Sued for Misclassifying Soccer Club Coaches
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in superior
court that Carlsbad United FC dba LA Galaxy San Diego hires coaches
for youth soccer clubs, "willfully misclassifies" them as
independent contractors to duck expenses such as payroll taxes, and
fired at least one of them for doing independent training and
coaching, in violation of the California Labor Code.
A copy of the Complaint is available at:
https://is.gd/106UDj
CHRISTMAS CITY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHRISTMAS CITY HOTEL,
L.L.C. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTMAS CITY HOTEL,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00547-CFK (E.D. Pa., Jan. 31,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Christmas City Hotel LLC is a privately-held company that operates
in the Hotels & Motels industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
COLOREDGE INC: Fails to Pay Properly Wages, Serrano Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SERRANO, an individual, on behalf of himself and the State
of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COLOREDGE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV01322 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 10, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
wages due and payable to their employees, to pay wages in a timely
manner, to provide meal and rest breaks, and to pay premium wages
for missed meal and rest breaks.
On July 26, 2018, Michael Serrano began working for Coloredge. He
says he was a young, ambitious, and highly productive worker
looking to start his career. He asserts that he was employed with
Coloredge for six months until he was wrongfully terminated by
Coloredge.
Coloredge provides visual marketing and brand imaging solutions.
The company offers a wide range of solutions, including graphic
design, pre-media, studio photography, CGI and 3D imaging, creative
retouching, package prototyping, and digital asset management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rene Potter, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: ReneP@PotterHandy.com
COMENITY CAPITAL: Court Denies Remand of Gonzalez Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the
case captioned LORI ANN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, a, Plaintiff, v. COMENITY CAPITAL BANK,
DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-00342-AWI-EPG.
Plaintiff Lori Ann Gonzalez filed a putative class action in Fresno
County Superior Court alleging that Defendant Comenity Capital Bank
routinely violates California statutes relating to identity theft
in connection with credit cards branded for Blair and
Overstock.com.
Comenity Capital removed the case to this forum based on diversity
of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b). The notice of
removal asserts that Gonzalez and Comenity Capital are citizens of
different states and that the total amount of individual relief to
which Gonzalez claims she is entitled if she prevails in this
action exceeds $75,000.
Gonzalez seeks remand.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
The notice of removal asserts that Comenity Capital and Gonzalez
are citizens of different states and that Gonzalez stands to
recover an amount greater than $75,000 if she prevails on all of
her claims, factoring in penalties under the Rosenthal Act, the
CITA claim and Section 530.8 of the California Penal Code, as well
as attorneys' fees.
In moving for remand, Gonzalez does not dispute that she and
Comenity Capital are citizens of different states but contends that
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
that remand is required under 28 U.S.C. Section1447(c), because
Comenity Capital cannot meet its burden to show that the amount in
controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold set forth
in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
Specifically, Gonzalez argues that using the maximum penalty under
the Rosenthal Act and the maximum penalty under the CITA to
calculate the amount in controversy is improper because the award
amounts are discretionary and the Complaint does not expressly seek
or allege facts to support the maximum award under either statute.
Comenity Capital's Opposition
Comenity Capital argues that using the maximum penalty under the
Rosenthal Act and the maximum penalty under the CITA to calculate
the amount in controversy in this action is proper because recent
Ninth Circuit decisions make it clear that the amount in
controversy in a case includes all relief a court may grant on a
complaint if the plaintiff prevails on all claims and because
Gonzalez has not stipulated that she is seeking less than the
maximum penalty under either statute.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, a defendant generally may remove an
action filed in state court if a federal district court would have
had original jurisdiction over the action. The Ninth Circuit
strictly construes the removal statute against removal jurisdiction
and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
to the right of removal in the first instance.
There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1)
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, which
gives federal courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332,
which gives federal courts original jurisdiction where the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs and there is complete diversity among the
parties.
Neither party disputes that the diversity requirement is satisfied
in this case, so the only issue for the Court to resolve on this
motion is whether it is more likely than not that the amount in
controversy in connection with Gonzalez's individual claims exceeds
the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
Statutory Penalties Under the Rosenthal Act and the CITA
Two of the statutes at issue in this action the Rosenthal Act and
the CITA contain provisions that specify maximum penalties. The
Rosenthal Act provides for penalties ranging from a minimum of $100
to a maximum of $1,000, subd. (b), while the CITA provides for
penalties of up to $30,000.
Gonzalez contends that the statutory maximum penalties should not
be included in the amount-in-controversy calculation because the
Complaint does not seek or allege facts justifying maximum
penalties, and because Comenity has failed to meet its burden to
show that maximum penalties will be awarded if Gonzalez prevails on
her claims.
Comenity, for its part, contends that it is proper to include
maximum penalties in the amount-in-controversy calculation because,
whether or not they are ultimately imposed, they are within the
scope of relief that could be awarded and are, thus, at stake in
the litigation.
The use of maximum statutory penalties in jurisdictional
amount-in-controversy calculations was addressed by this district
in Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F.Supp.2d 1199 (E.D. Cal.
2008).
Korn was a putative class action involving alleged violations of
Section 1747.08 of the California Civil Code, which provides for a
civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for
the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each
subsequent violation.
Defendant removed the action to federal court under the CAFA and,
in seeking remand, plaintiff took the position that the $1,000
maximum penalty set forth in the statute should not be included in
the amount in controversy because the class plaintiffs could be
awarded less than the maximum statutory penalty per violation.
The court rejected that argument on the ground that it overlooked
the critical distinction between the likely recovery per plaintiff
and the actual issue before the court, the amount in controversy in
the litigation. Further, the court found that the maximum penalty
was properly included in the amount in controversy because
plaintiff alleged that he and every other class member were
entitled to civil penalties in amounts up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) per violation and had not stipulated that he would demand
less than the maximum civil penalty.
In short, the court found that where a statutory maximum is
specified, courts may consider the maximum statutory penalty
available in determining whether the jurisdictional amount in
controversy requirement is met and that plaintiff could not avoid
satisfaction of the amount in controversy by arguing that the class
plaintiffs may be awarded less than the statutory maximum.
The Court therefore finds that the maximum penalty specified in a
statute is properly included in a jurisdictional
amount-in-controversy calculation where a plaintiff could
reasonably recover such penalty. The amounts in controversy as to
Gonzalez's claims under the Rosenthal Act and the CITA are
evaluated accordingly below.
Rosenthal Act Claims
Gonzalez alleges that Comenity Capital violated Sections 1788.13,
1788.17 and 1788.18 of the California Civil Code through
persistent, frequent, willful and knowing wrongdoing that included
sending empty threats of legal action, failing to notify Gonzalez
and others that claims of identity theft must be in writing and
failing to cease collections upon receipt of written notification
of identity theft.
While awards vary, the allegations in the Complaint, including, for
example, the allegation that Comenity contacted Gonzalez on several
occasions and engaged in multiple forms of misconduct under the
Rosenthal Act) appear sufficient, in light of relevant caselaw, to
show that Comenity's conduct was willful and knowing and that
Gonzalez could reasonably recover the maximum penalty under the
Rosenthal Act in this action. Further, Gonzalez has not disclaimed
the maximum penalty or otherwise limited her prayer under the
Rosenthal Act, which expressly calls for statutory damages.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Complaint puts the maximum
penalty under the Rosenthal Act at stake in this action and assigns
a value of $1,000 to Gonzalez's individual claim under the
Rosenthal Act for purposes of the amount-in-controversy
calculation.
CITA Claim
The CITA provides for:
A civil penalty, in addition to any other damages, of up to thirty
thousand dollars ($30,000) if the victim establishes by clear and
convincing evidence all of the following: (A) That at least 30 days
prior to filing an action or within the cross-complaint pursuant to
this section, he or she provided written notice to the claimant at
the address designated by the claimant for complaints related to
credit reporting issues that a situation of identity theft might
exist and explaining the basis for that belief. (B) That the
claimant failed to diligently investigate the victim's notification
of a possible identity theft. (C) That the claimant continued to
pursue its claim against the victim after the claimant was
presented with facts that were later held to entitle the victim to
a judgment pursuant to this section.
Comenity cites a couple of cases in which the $30,000 statutory
maximum was awarded to the prevailing plaintiff under the CITA. In
Washington, the district court awarded the $30,000 statutory
maximum penalty on default judgment based on a mere finding that
the FAC has sufficiently alleged a claim under the CITA.
Gonzalez, for her part, cites Heidorn v. BDD Marketing & Management
Co., LLC to show an award of a much smaller amount just $3,000 on
default judgment. That $3,000 award, however, is predicated not on
the CITA but on California's Shine the Light Law, California Civil
Code Sectin 1798.83, for which $3,000 is, in fact, the maximum
penalty that can be awarded.
Here again, Gonzalez has prayed without caveat for a penalty under
a statute that specifies a maximum penalty while alleging facts
that appear, in light of relevant case law, to be sufficient to
justify the statutory maximum penalty under the CITA. The Court,
therefore, finds that it is proper to include the statutory maximum
penalty in the amount-in-controversy calculation. Further, the
Court sees no merit in Gonzalez's argument that it is improper to
include two CITA penalties in the amount-in-controversy
calculation.
At the time of removal, it appeared Gonzalez could reasonably
recover the maximum CITA penalty of $30,000 in connection with the
Overstock.com account and the maximum CITA penalty of $30,000 in
connection with the Blair account. Thus, the Court assigns a
combined value of $60,000 to Gonzalez's claim for penalties under
the CITA for purposes of the amount-in-controversy calculation.
Statutory Penalty Under Section 530.8 of the California Penal Code
Section 530.8 of the California Penal Code gives victims of
identity theft the right to certain information like transaction
records and account applications relating to accounts opened in
their names by unauthorized persons.
Gonzalez alleges that Comenity has willfully and knowingly violated
Penal Code section 530.8, subdivision (a) and prays for actual
damages according to proof and a penalty as authorized by Penal
Code section 530.8, subdivision (d)(2), to be paid to Gonzalez and
each Information Request Class member; injunctive relief and such
other equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Comenity Capital contends and Gonzalez does not dispute that the
penalty under Section 530.8, subdivision (d)(2) totaled $23,300 for
the two credit card accounts at issue in this action at the time of
removal.
Thus, there is a minimum of $23,300 in penalties at stake in
connection with Gonzalez's claim under Section 530.8 of the
California Penal Code, without even considering accruals after the
date of removal. Combined with the Court's findings as to the
penalties at stake under the Rosenthal Act and the CITA, this
brings the total amount in controversy in this action as to
penalties alone to $84,300.
The Court finds that there is $61,000 at stake in connection with
Gonzalez's claims under the Rosenthal Act and the CITA, and there
is no dispute between the parties that at least $23,300 at issue in
connection with Gonzalez's claim under Section 530.8 of the Penal
Code. Thus, the amount in controversy in this action is at least
$84,300, even without counting the post-removal portion of the
Section 530.8 penalty, attorneys' fees or Gonzalez's prayers for
actual damages and equitable relief.
Therefore, the Court properly has jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and remand is not warranted.
Gonzalez's motion to remand is, thus, DENIED, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3dxqgm5 from Leagle.com.
Lori Ann Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Weiss -
jonathan.weiss@squirepb.com - Law Office Of Jonathan Weiss & Tavy
Alice Dumont - tavy.dumont@dumontlaw.com - Law Office of Tavy A.
Dumont.
Comenity Capital Bank, Defendant, represented by Tomio B. Narita -
tnarita@snllp.com - Simmonds & Narita, LLP, Margaret T. Cardasis -
mcardasis@snllp.com - Simmonds & Narita LLP & Robert Travis
Campbell - tcampbell@snllp.com - Simmonds & Narita LLP.
CONNECTICUT LAW: Class Action Cert. Sought in Thompson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Thompson, the Plaintiff v.
Connecticut Law Revision Commission, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-O1879-VLB (Conn. 2nd Cir.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting a motion for certification of class
action and motion for appointment of counsel. The lawsuit seeks
redress for ongoing Constitutional violations.
The Plaintiffs of the following actions also agree to the
certification of class action:
(1) Henderson v. Connecticut Law Revision Commission et al.,
Case No. 3:2O-cv-OOO58-CSH;
(2) Smith v. Connecticut Law Revision Commission et al., Case
No. 3:2O-cv-OOO54-AVC;
(3) Carattini v. Connecticut Law Revision Commission et al.,
Case No. 3:2O-cv-OOO57-JCH;
(4) McClain v. Connecticut Law Revision Commission et al., Case
No. 3:2O-cv-OOO55-JCH;
(5) Swain v. Connecticut Law Revision Commission et al., Case
No. 3:2O-cv-OOO59-KAD.
The Connecticut Law Revision Commission assists the Judiciary
Committee and other legislative and executive bodies on specific
revision proposals and solicits the expertise of numerous state
legal authorities in arriving at its consensus on
recommendations.[CC]
CONTRACT CALLERS: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Rozani Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JULIAN ROZANI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CONTRACT CALLERS, INC. AND SECOND ROUND, LP, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00145-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[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
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
CS WANG: CS Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CS WANG & ASSOCIATE, et al.,
the Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action;
2. designating themselves as the representatives of their
respective classes; and
3. appointing Myron M. Cherry, Jacie C. Zolna, and Benjamin
R. Swetland as class counsel for each class.
This litigation involves more than a million secretly recorded
telephone calls made to California small businesses by two
telemarketing companies acting on behalf of large banks and
national credit card payment processing companies. Both of the
telemarketing companies in this case -- International Payment
Services, LLC and Ironwood Financial, LLC -- adopted a uniform
policy of recording all of their outbound telemarketing sales
calls.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes are:
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
MYRON M. CHERRY & A SSOCIATES LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-2100
E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
jzolna@cherry-law.com
bswetland@cherry-law.com
jnixon@cherry-law.com
jchavin@cherry-law.com
CURA PARTNERS: Pope Files Suit in Tort Class Action in Ore.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cura Partners Inc.
The case is styled as Tom Pope, Elena Pope, OBO: others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Cura Partners Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20CV05932 (Ore., 4th Judicial Ct., Multnomah Cty., Jan. 31, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Tort - General".
Cura Partners, Inc. provides oilseed processing services. The
Company offers cannabis oil to both individual consumers and edible
brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by MICHAEL FULLER, ESQ.
DEALER PREP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Cruz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thiago Cruz, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. DEALER PREP SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-00976 (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages owed in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law.
The Defendant improperly classifies employees, who work as
detailers, as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does
not pay detailers overtime compensation at the correct rate of time
and a half, even though detailers should be paid for overtime
compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. He adds
that the Defendant only pays detailers straight time pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.
Mr. Cruz has worked as a detailer for the Defendant's car prepping
business in West Caldwell, New Jersey.
Dealer Prep Services Corporation is a corporation based in Pompton
Plains, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer H. Kuhner, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW LLC
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250 x5515
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
Email: skuhner@lemberglaw.com
DIRECT RECOVERY: Coleman Sues Over Violations of TCPA and FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, and ELLE GUSMAN, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00121 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to numbers
assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express
consent, while using an artificial or prerecorded voice to make
those telephone calls, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant also
routinely violates the FDCPA by engaging in conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse consumers in
connection with the collection of debts, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Cairo, Illinois.
DRS is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Two
Harbors, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
1540 Congress Ave., Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512.803.1578
Email: akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
DOORDASH INC: Linn Seeks Minimum Wage & Reimbursement for Dashers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Linn, Baxter Gipson, John Gregorio, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. DoorDash, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00666 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2020), seeks to recover
minimum wage and reimbursement of business expenses pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
DoorDash's misclassification of its workforce causes harms to the
Plaintiffs and their fellow "Dashers" (the term DoorDash uses for
its delivery drivers), the Plaintiffs allege. This
misclassification depresses Dashers' wages, forcing many to work
multiple jobs to make ends meet, the Plaintiffs aver.
As "employees," the Plaintiffs are entitled to all the benefits and
protections afforded by federal and state labor law, including
minimum wage and reimbursement of business expenses, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers for DoorDash in
California.
DoorDash provides its customers with an on-demand food delivery
service through its mobile phone application.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Relic Sun, Esq.
Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
rsun@outtengolden.com
mfrandsen@outtengolden.com
- and -
Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
Nikul Shah, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-350-9700
Facsimile: 510-350-9701
Email: smt@classlawgroup.com
ab@classlawgroup.com
ns@classlawgroup.com
EQUIFAX INC: Class Action Settlement Could Top $500 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Kwan, writing for ZDNet.com, reports that after two and a
half years, Equifax's massive data breach that impacted the
personal information of about 147 million Americans has officially
been settled in court, with the company to potentially spend over
$500 million in direct payments to class members who raised actions
against it.
The incident was discovered in July 2018, with the credit rating
firm saying that hackers had exploited a vulnerability on its
website to access certain files, including names, social security
numbers, birth dates, home addresses, and in some cases driver's
licence numbers.
Shortly after the data breach was revealed, over 300 class actions
were raised against Equifax, followed by more than 18 months of
negotiations until the parties in April 2019 informed the court
that a settlement was reached.
After consulting and negotiating with the US Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), state attorneys, and members of the class actions
regarding revisions to the term sheet, the parties entered into a
proposed settlement agreement in July last year.
In July, the proposed amount for settlement was $700 million in
damages, but with the court's ruling earlier this week, the amount
that Equifax will officially be forced to shell out is, at a
minimum, around $1.38 billion.
The settlement will require Equifax to put $380.5 million into a
fund to compensate class members, and potentially an additional
$125 million, if needed, to satisfy claims for certain
out-of-pocket losses of the class members.
The $380.5 million fund is dedicated towards reimbursing up to
$20,000 per class member for documented, out-of-pocket losses
fairly traceable to the breach, such as the cost of freezing or
unfreezing a credit file; buying credit monitoring services;
out-of-pocket losses from identity theft or fraud, including
professional fees; and other remedial expenses.
It will also be used to provide 25% of any money paid to Equifax
for credit monitoring or identity theft protection subscription
products in the year before the breach.
The credit rating firm has also agreed to spend at least $1 billion
over five years on data security and related technology to comply
with part of the settlement.
Expert witness in cybersecurity Mary Frantz said the implementation
of these requirements should substantially reduce the likelihood of
another data breach and would most likely have prevented the 2017
data breach from occurring.
Chief Judge Thomas W Thrash, meanwhile, labelled the incident as
the "largest and most comprehensive recovery in a data breach case
in US history by several orders of magnitude".
"The $380.5 million fund alone is more than the total recovered in
all consumer data breach settlements in the last ten years," Thrash
added.
Equifax will also be obligated to provide four years of
three-bureau credit monitoring and identity protection services
through Experian and an additional six years of one-bureau credit
monitoring and identity protection services through Equifax for
class members. The one-bureau credit monitoring shall be provided
separately by Equifax and not be paid for from the settlement
fund.
If all 147 million class members sign up for credit monitoring,
this could amount to an additional $2 billion in value of services
to be provided by Equifax.
Prior to the settlement, 3.3 million class members had already
submitted claims for credit monitoring services with a collective
retail value of roughly $6 billion, the court said.
In total, the benefit to the class -- even when only considering
the value of the $380.5 million minimum settlement fund, the
minimum $1 billion Equifax is required to spend on data security
and related technology, and the retail value of the credit
monitoring already claimed by class members -- exceeds $7 billion
in value.
If Equifax ends up being obligated to pay the additional costs --
the additional $125 million to pay claims for out-of-pocket losses
and $2 billion for credit monitoring services of all 147 million
class members -- the credit rating firm's maximum expenditure to
move forward from the data breach would total around $9.5 billion
in value.
Equifax will also pay the class members' attorneys around $80
million for their role in representing the class action.
Out of the approximately 147 million class members, 388 directly
objected to the settlement, with many wanting Equifax's senior
management to be punished.
"The court is well aware of the intense public anger about the
breach, which, in the court's view, reflects the sentiment that
consumers generally do not voluntarily give their personal
information directly to Equifax, yet Equifax collects and profits
from this information and allegedly failed to take reasonable
measures to protect it," the court said.
The court said, however, that it could not punish Equifax for its
negligence as its role was only to determine whether the proposed
settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Equifax chief
executive Richard Smith stepped down in October 2017.
Class members will have until July 22, 2020 to claim benefits and
will not be required to file a claim to access identity restoration
services.
If money still remains in the $380.5 million fund after the initial
claims period, there will be a four-year extended claims period
during which class members may recover for certain out-of-pocket
losses and time spent rectifying identity theft. [GN]
EVOQUA WATER: Fails to Pay Engineers OT Wages, Edmondson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Edmondson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00139-MRH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 29, 2020), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of its
failure to pay the Plaintiff and other salaried Mechanical
Engineers an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly "Field
Technician" from October 2018 to August 2019, and as a salaried
"Mechanical Engineer" from August 2019 until January 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that he and other salaried Mechanical Engineers
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but they were not
paid proper overtime premium.
The Defendant's primary business is providing water treatment
systems and services.[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
EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Exelon Corporation (NASDAQ: EXC) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and
docketed under 19-cv-08209, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon securities
between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Exelon securities during the
class period, you have until February 14, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy
generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. and Canada.
Exelon owns various "Utility Registrants" that are regulated by
State utility commissions, including, among other entities,
Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"). ComEd's parent company is Exelon
Utilities.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exelon and/or its employees
were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing
increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii)
ComEd's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and
thus unsustainable; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 15, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon and
ComEd had "received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production
of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of
Illinois."
Then, on October 9, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed
another Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that,
on October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "received a second grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois that requires production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities, including
Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval." That Current Report also
disclosed that, as far back as "[o]n June 21, 2019, the Exelon
Corporation Board formed a Special Oversight Committee, consisting
solely of independent directors, to oversee [Exelon and ComEd's]
cooperation and compliance with the subpoena, any further action
taken by the U.S. Attorney and any resulting actions that may be
required or recommended."
On October 15, 2019, shortly before the market closed, Exelon
issued a press release announcing the abrupt departure of Anne
Pramaggiore ("Pramaggiore"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of
Exelon Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd. The Company's
statement on Pramaggiore's retirement offered no reason for her
departure, but analysts following the Company came to the
conclusion that the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt
resignation were related.
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%,
to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019.
Then, on October 31, 2019, during intraday trading, Exelon filed a
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, disclosing that "[o]n
October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities."
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.17 per share, or 2.51%,
to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019.
Finally, on November 1, 2019, after the market opened, the Chicago
Tribune reported that "[a] source with knowledge of the case in
Chicago" confirmed that "Pramaggiore is one focus of the ongoing
federal investigation." According to the same article, "[t]he
ComEd lobbying investigation dates to at least mid-May, when the
FBI executed search warrants at the homes of former lobbyist Mike
McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of House Speaker Michael
Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski" (emphasis
added). Additionally, "[t]he information sought by the FBI
included records of communications among Madigan, McClain and
Zalewski about attempts to obtain ComEd lobbying work for
Zalewski."
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell an additional $0.15 per
share to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019—a total
decline of 2.83% since the initial announcement of the SEC
investigation.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]
FARMERS GROUP: Class Certification Bid Tossed in Grigson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT
VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, the
PLAINTIFFS, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No
1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an
order dismissing without prejudice:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed March 12,
2019;
-- Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony and strike the
affidavit of Michael Averill filed May 20, 2019; and
-- Plaintiffs' Motion to exclude expert testimony and strike the
Declaration and Report of Dr. James A. Roberts filed July 18,
2019.
Farmers Group operates as an insurance management and holding
company.[CC]
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Vallejo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Didiana Vallejo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00575 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
FLEUR MARCHE: Olsen Brings ADA Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleur Marche, Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fleur Marche,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00545 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Fleur Marche is a one-stop-shop for CBD products and brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
FLIGHT CENTRE: Mahoney Files ADA Class Action in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FLIGHT CENTRE TRAVEL
GROUP (USA) INC. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIGHT
CENTRE TRAVEL GROUP (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00546-JP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Flight Centre Travel Group is one of the world's largest travel
agency groups, it has company-owned operations in 23 countries and
a corporate travel management network that spans more than 90
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased
February 7, 2019 - October 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 2, 2020
FSCT Shareholders may click https://bit.ly/2RW37eF
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Forescout Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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; (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Notes of March 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSCT)
securities between February 7, 2019 and October 9, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Sayce v. Forescout Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-00076, and is assigned to Judge Susan Y.
Illston. The Forescout class action lawsuit charges Forescout and
certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Forescout securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Forescout class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff can select the law firm of its choice and
acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the Forescout class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Forescout class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Forescout class action lawsuit, please visit
our website by clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Forescout
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
March 2, 2020.
Forescout provides network security products and services through
distributors and resellers in the Americas, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, the Asia Pacific region, and Japan.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the Company's business and
operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose 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"), which was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results. As a result of
this information being withheld from the market, Forescout
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $45 per
share.
Then on October 10, 2019, before the market opened, Forescout
announced its preliminary third quarter 2019 ("3Q19") financial
results, lowering its 3Q19 revenue guidance to $90.6 million to
$91.6 million, compared to prior revenue guidance of $98.8 million
to $101.8 million and market consensus estimates of $100.52
million. In explaining these results, defendants cited "extended
approval cycles [that] 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 more than 37%, to
close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019.
Subsequently, on October 16, 2019, UBS cut its price target for
Forescout from $50 to $33 per share, stating that "[e]xecution
credibility has been undermined" and has created "a likely
frustrating valuation overhang," which will require several
quarters to "rebuild investor confidence." Then on November 6,
2019, Forescout reported its 3Q19 results and downgraded its fiscal
2019 financial guidance significantly, explaining that "several
seven digit deals did not close as expected" and acknowledging that
large deal volatility and delayed deals were an ongoing issue for
the Company.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contact:
Brian Cochran, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Tel: 800-449-4900
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]
GEICO GENERAL: Court Dismisses Count I in Rosenberg Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY ROSENBERG, D.C., P.A., a/a/o Danielle Russell,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-61422-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff commenced the class action for declaratory judgment
(Count I) and breach of contract (Count II) against the Defendant,
alleging that Defendant has a wide-spread practice of improperly
paying personal injury protection ("PIP") claims at a reduced
amount. The Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's interpretation of
a specific endorsement to one of its automobile policies, "FLPIP
(01-13)." The endorsement includes the following language: "A
charge submitted by a provider, for an amount less than the amount
allowed above, will be paid in the amount of the charge submitted."
According to the Amended Complaint, Russell was insured under an
automobile insurance policy with the Defendant. Russell was
involved in a motor vehicle accident while insured. The Plaintiff
is a healthcare provider that provided medical care to Russell for
the injuries she sustained in the motor vehicle accident, in
exchange for an assignment of benefits. The Amended Complaint
lists four charges for Russell's medical services, for which the
Plaintiff submitted claims to the Defendant.
The four charges listed in the Amended Complaint were for amounts
less than the amount permitted by a permissive fee schedule under
Florida Statutes Section 627.736 ("Florida PIP Statute"). For each
charge that was below the fee schedule amount, the Defendant
reimbursed the Plaintiff for 80% of the billed amount and provided
an Explanation of Review ("EOR") that contained the code "BA." The
BA code indicated that Defendant reduced reimbursement of the
charge to 80% of the billed amount. The Plaintiff believes that
the language in the endorsement required full payment of bills for
amounts that were less than the amounts set forth in the fee
schedule, rather than payment of 80% of the billed amounts. The
Defendant takes the contrary position.
The action was originally filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, asserting a single class
declaratory judgment claim. The Defendant filed a Notice of
Removal on June 6, 2019, relying on the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"). The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand "in an abundance
of caution" for the Court to consider whether remand was
appropriate for lack of Article III standing. In response, the
Defendant argued that dismissal, rather the remand, was necessary
for a lack of standing.
The Court denied the Motion for Remand, holding that the Plaintiff
had Article III standing because the declaratory judgment claim in
the original Complaint sought individual, supplemental monetary
damages resulting from Defendant allegedly paying less on certain
insurance claims than owed to the Plaintiff. On Sept. 11, 2019,
the Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint, adding an additional
claim for breach of contract on a class-wide basis.
In the instant Motion, the Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiff lacks
standing under Article III and that the Amended Complaint fails to
state a breach of contract claim that could be certified on a
class-wide basis. The Plaintiff contends that it has sufficiently
established Article III standing and that a determination on class
certification issues is inappropriate at the motion-to-dismiss
stage, where the parties have not had the opportunity to engage in
discovery in order to sufficiently establish all of the elements
required for class certification.
The Court held a hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in
November 2019. During the Hearing, the Defendant argued primarily
that the individual issues regarding the calculation of damages for
each class member indicate, on the face of the Amended Complaint,
that the Plaintiff cannot establish the typicality and predominance
elements required for class certification. The Plaintiff, on the
other hand, first advised the Court that it was withdrawing Count I
of its Amended Complaint and would only be proceeding on the breach
of contract claims asserted under Count II. Additionally, the
Plaintiff argued that the issue of class certification is premature
at the motion-to-dismiss stage of the litigation and that
individualized issues on damages nonetheless do not preclude class
certification.
In the instant case, the Breach of Contract Class is defined in the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: All health care
providers, who within the applicable statutes of limitations,
through the date of filing the lawsuit (the Class Period), received
an assignment of benefits from a claimant and thereafter, pursuant
to that assignment, submitted claims for no-fault benefits under
GEICO's Policies to which Endorsement FLPIP (01-13) applies, and
any subsequent Policies with substantially similar language that
were in effect since Jan. 1, 2013, where GEICO utilized the Code BA
with respect to the payment of any claim and paid the provider only
80% of the amount charged.
As an initial matter, Judge Bloom notes that the Plaintiff withdrew
Count I of its Amended Complaint at the Hearing. Thus, the
arguments presented regarding the declaratory judgment count need
not be addressed. As such, the Defendant's Motion is granted as to
Count I, the Court orders.
Turning to Count II of the Amended Complaint, Judge Bloom finds
that the Plaintiff is entitled to move for class certification,
after having had the opportunity to fully develop the "shape and
form" of the proposed class through the discovery process. Absent
such discovery to clearly establish whether the damages
calculations are so individualized and pervasive as to defeat the
possibility of class certification, Judge Bloom cannot make a
determination as to typicality and predominance at this stage.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion is denied as to Count II, the
Court orders.
Judge Bloom will address the merits of class certification at the
appropriate stage of these proceedings.
In sum, Judge Bloom granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss consistent with her Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FxDArp from Leagle.com.
Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Herbert
Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne, LLP, Mark S.
Fistos -- mfistos@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne LLP & Michael Trent
Lewenz -- Mlewenz@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne LLP.
GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Michael
A. Rosenberg, Cole, Scott, Kissane, P.A., Thomas Lee Hunker --
thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Peter
David Weinstein -- peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott
Kissane PA.
GEM RECOVERY: Nass Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEM RECOVERY SYSTEMS
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shmeil Nass, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEM RECOVERY
SYSTEMS LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01104-KM-JBC (D.N.J., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Gem Recovery Systems, Inc. (GRS) is a third-party collection agency
based in New Jersey that specializes in collecting delinquent
medical bills.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: RICO Claims Revived in Avandia Drug Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
GlaxoSmithKline must defend itself against racketeering and
consumer fraud claims that it falsely marketed its diabetes drug
Avandia as reducing heart problems when the drug actually increased
the risk of heart attack, the Third Circuit ruled.
At one point, the drug Avandia was GlaxoSmithKline's top money
maker, with sales peaking at $3 billion in 2006.
But a year later, research came out linking the drug with an
increased risk of heart attack and in 2010, a Senate Finance
Committee investigation found that "the totality of evidence
suggests that GSK was aware of the possible cardiac risks
associated with Avandia years before such evidence became public."
Avandia sales plummeted to $680 million in 2010, when an FDA
advisory committee recommended a recall of the drug and placed
severe restrictions on its prescription.
In the wake of these revelations, GSK entered into the largest
health care fraud settlement in U.S history with a $3 billion
settlement for criminal and civil liabilities related to three of
its drugs, including Avandia, which makes up $242 million of the
settlement.
However, in 2013, the FDA reevaluated a key clinical trial and
concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of increased
risk of heart attacks. The agency removed the restrictions from the
drug but at this point, it was subject to generic competition and
was no longer a blockbuster drug.
In a class action under federal anti-racketeering law, several
health plans, led by UFCW Local 1776, sued GSK claiming that they
would not have covered Avandia if the drugmaker had disclosed the
cardiovascular risks associated with the diabetes drug.
A federal judge tossed the suit on pre-emption grounds, but the
Third Circuit reversed.
"GSK has failed to demonstrate that the plans' state-law
consumer-protection claims are preempted by the FDCA," wrote U.S.
Circuit Judge Felipe Restrepo, an Obama appointee, using an
abbreviation for the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
The drugmaker's own evidence shows that it could have added a
warning to Avandia's label regarding the drug's cardiovascular
health risks in 2005 but never made a formal application to make a
label change, according to the 24-page opinion, despite GSK's
assertions at oral arguments.
"The plans never received discovery related to their RICO claims,
including with respect to whether an 'enterprise' existed for
purposes of RICO," Restrepo said. "This was an abuse of
discretion."
U.S. Circuit Judges Brooks Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, and
Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee, joined the opinion.
"On remand, the District Court must consider the plans' arguments
that GSK marketed Avandia as providing cardiovascular benefits,"
Restrepo added (emphasis in original). "The plans have never argued
that GSK promoted Avandia as capable of actually improving
patients' cardiovascular health, but rather as capable of lowering
cardiovascular risk when compared to cheaper alternatives, which
indeed is a 'benefit.'"
A GSK spokesperson said in a statement, "We are disappointed with
the decision from the Third Circuit and are evaluating our options,
including a request for review by the full Third Circuit."
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over Geolocation Tracking Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that putative class action
plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims against Google fail because
it is "entirely speculative" that geolocation data was ever
collected from any of the plaintiffs while they were at a
"sensitive or confidential location," a federal court in California
ruled.
Further, Google did not track all of plaintiffs movements, only
specific movements and locations, says the ruling.
A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
available at:
https://is.gd/nGIG1B
GREEN DOT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
GDOT Shareholders may click https://bit.ly/38852m9
Green Dot Corporation (GDOT)
GDOT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 9, 2018
- November 7, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 18, 2020
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Green
Dot Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Green Dot's strategy to attract
"high-value" long-term customers was at the expense of "one and
done" customers; (2) Green Dot's "one and done" customers
represented a significant source of revenues in its legacy segment;
(3) consequently, Green Dot's strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its
business and operations were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
GREEN POGO: Faces RICO Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank V. Barone,
Kirill Chumenko, Green Pogo LLC (Delaware), Green Pogo LLC (New
Jersey), Natural Beauty Line LLC, Vegan Beauty LLC, Improved
Nutraceuticals LLC, Fortera Nutra Solutions LLC, Advanced Beauty
LLC, SFLG Inc., Kurt Ellis under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The case is styled as Cindy Adam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frank V. Barone, Kirill
Chumenko, Green Pogo LLC (Delaware), Green Pogo LLC (New Jersey),
Natural Beauty Line LLC, Vegan Beauty LLC, Improved Nutraceuticals
LLC, Fortera Nutra Solutions LLC, Advanced Beauty LLC, SFLG Inc.,
Kurt Ellis, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00761-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb.
1, 2020).
This suit involves a form of fraud and cybercrime that has become
increasingly common across the Internet, known as the celebrity
free trial scam. These scammers, such as the Defendants, entice
consumers with fake celebrity endorsements, claiming that
well-known celebrities have either endorsed or created a new line
of cosmetics products.
Ms. Adam was a victim of these scammers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq.
321 N. Orange St. Apt. 306
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (512) 420-8407
Email: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
GREEN ROADS: Court Awaits FDA Ruling on CBD, Stays Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that a
federal judge recently "stayed," or put on hold, a putative class
action lawsuit filed against Green Roads of Florida LLC for
misrepresenting the amount of CBD in its products pending the
completion of a rulemaking by FDA.
U.S. marketers of CBD--a non-psychoactive compound sourced from
hemp--are facing a growing number of proposed class action
lawsuits. But marketers ensnared in the litigation could get some
temporary relief if courts invoke a doctrine known as "primary
jurisdiction," which occurred in the suit against Green Roads of
Deerfield Beach, Florida.
The doctrine applies, U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro
wrote, "where a plaintiff's claims implicate a federal agency's
expertise with a regulated product."
On Jan. 1, 2020, Florida began regulating CBD products, including
their labeling regarding the number of milligrams of hemp extract
in a product. FDA, however, has not adopted CBD labeling
regulations, Ungaro noted.
According to FDA, CBD cannot be added to conventional food or
marketed in dietary supplements because the compound was first
studied as a drug by GW Pharmaceuticals plc. The agency is
considering whether to authorize CBD in food and supplements, but
it has not started any formal rulemaking.
"The FDA regulations currently provide little guidance with respect
to whether CBD ingestibles, in all their variations are food
supplements, nutrients or additives and what labeling standards are
applicable to each itineration," Ungaro wrote in her Jan. 3 order.
Although Florida's new rule "addresses CBD product labeling, the
court would benefit greatly from the FDA's regulatory oversight."
The judge stayed the lawsuit against Green Roads until "FDA
completes its rulemaking regarding the marketing, including
labeling, of hemp-derived ingestible products."
Ungaro also ruled plaintiffs don't have "standing" to assert claims
based on the marketing of products they did not buy. But the judge
denied Green Road's motion to dismiss the complaint, including
allegations of unjust enrichment and violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Green Roads, which the September 2019 suit characterized as the
"largest privately-owned CBD company," is accused of
misrepresenting the amount of CBD in its products on its labeling,
packaging and website. A separate lawsuit was filed against Green
Roads in December 2019 as part of a wave of class action complaints
following statements in FDA warning letters and an agency news
release that CBD cannot be lawfully sold in supplements and poses
safety concerns.
"The primary jurisdiction doctrine is even more relevant in this
most recent round of lawsuits targeting CBD products labeled as
dietary supplements, since whether or not products meet the
definition of 'dietary supplement' is clearly a determination that
should be left to FDA only," said Rend Al-Mondhiry, a partner in
Washington with the law firm Amin Talati Wasserman LLP, in an
email.
The definitional issue "requires both expertise and uniformity in
administration," added Al-Mondhiry, a regulatory lawyer who is not
involved in the Green Roads lawsuit subject to Ungaro's order. "And
of course, FDA is still reviewing the potential regulatory pathways
for CBD, so it would be premature and inappropriate for courts to
step in when FDA hasn't yet made a final determination."
Green Roads, its attorneys with Greenberg Traurig LLP, and
plaintiffs' lawyers with Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert Ostrow did not immediately respond to requests for comment
on the recent order.
The lawsuit, Brook Snyder and Ryan Terry vs. Green Roads of Florida
LLC, 0:19-cv-62342-AHS, is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. [GN]
GREEN THUMB: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Thumb
Industries Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Green Thumb Industries Inc., doing business as: Beboe, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00579 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
GTI is a provider of marijuana and cannabis products for legal,
medical use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
HERBALIFE LTD: Court Signs Stipulated Protective Order in Lavigne
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner of United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Western Division signed a
stipulated protective order in the case captioned MICHAEL LAVIGNE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. HERBALIFE LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07480-JAK (MRWx) (C.D. Cal.).
This putative class action involves claims arising out of
Plaintiffs' attendance at Herbalife events and alleged
misrepresentations about the nature of Herbalife's business
opportunity made at those events. Plaintiffs have propounded
discovery requests that seek, among other things, video and audio
recordings of Herbalife events, minutes from meetings of
Herbalife's Board of Directors regarding events, fees paid to
Herbalife distributors to speak at events, documents reflecting
event attendance records, documents reflecting membership in
certain business committees, tax and bank account information, and
communications discussing Herbalife's events.
Notwithstanding Herbalife's objections to the production of much of
this material, Herbalife asserts that such materials consist of,
among other things, information regarding confidential business
strategies and policies; sensitive financial information;
information implicating the privacy rights of third parties; and/or
information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from
disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case
decisions, or common law.
The Protective Orders provides, among other things, that nothing in
this Good Cause Statement or Stipulated Protective Order shall be
construed as an agreement by Plaintiffs that any specific documents
or categories of documents are properly considered Confidential
Information as defined herein.
It is the intent of the parties that information will not be
designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be
so designated without a good faith belief that it has been
maintained in a confidential, non-public manner. It also is the
intent of the parties that information will not be designated as
confidential unless there is good cause as to why such information
should not be part of the public record of this case.
Further, there are potentially certain highly sensitive materials
that implicate the privacy interests of third parties, including
compensation and disciplinary records pertaining to those third
parties. Pursuant to the Court's November 18, 2019 and November 26,
2019 Orders, these materials are presumptively considered to be
Attorneys' Eyes Only under this Protective Order.
Designation in conformity with this Order requires: for information
in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but
excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial
proceedings), that the Producing Party affix at a minimum, the
legend CONFIDENTIAL (CONFIDENTIAL legend), to each page that
contains protected material. If only a portion or portions of the
material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party
also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by
making appropriate markings in the margins).
Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for
inspection need not designate them for protection until after the
inspecting Party has indicated which documents it would like copied
and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all
of the material made available for inspection will be deemed
CONFIDENTIAL. After the inspecting Party has identified the
documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must
determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for
protection under this Order. Then, before producing the specified
documents, the Producing Party must affix the CONFIDENTIAL legend
(or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY if applicable) to each page that contains
Protected Material.
If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in
other litigation that compels disclosure of any information or
items designated in this Action as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY that Party must:
(a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such
notification will include a copy of the subpoena or court order;
(b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena
or order to issue in the other litigation that some or all of the
material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to this
Protective Order. Such notification will include a copy of this
Stipulated Protective Order; and
(c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to
be pursued by the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be
affected.
If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party
served with the subpoena or court order will not produce any
information designated in this action as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY" before a determination by the court from which the
subpoena or order issued, unless the Party has obtained the
Designating Party's permission. The Designating Party will bear the
burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its
confidential material and nothing in these provisions should be
construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this
Action to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
A full-text copy of the Stipulated Protective Order's December 2,
2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wb4bjct from
Leagle.com.
Michael Lavigne, Jennifer Lavigne, Cody Pyle & Felix Valdez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Lara O'Donnell , Jorden Burt LLP, 777
Brickell Avenue, Suite 500, Miami, FL 33131, Donald J. Hayden ,
Mark Midgal and Hayden, 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999, Miami, FL
33130, pro hac vice, Etan Mark , Mark Migdal and Hayden, 80 SW 8th
Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130, pro hac vice, Jason M. Jones -
jasonjoneslaw22@gmail.com - Jason Jones Attorney at Law, pro hac
vice & Paul Andrew Levin - paul.levin@mortgagerecoveries.com -
Mortgage Recovery Law Group LLP.
Jennifer Ribalta, Jeff Rodgers, Patricia Rodgers & Izaar Valdez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Lara O'Donnell , Jorden Burt LLP, Donald
J. Hayden , Mark Midgal and Hayden, pro hac vice, Etan Mark , Mark
Migdal and Hayden, pro hac vice, Jason M. Jones , Jason Jones
Attorney at Law, pro hac vice, Jennifer Carol Jones , Law Office of
Jennifer Jones, pro hac vice, Paul Andrew Levin , Mortgage Recovery
Law Group LLP & Yaniv Adar , Mark Migdal and Hayden, 80 SW 8th
Street, Suite 1999, Miami, FL 33130, pro hac vice.
Herbalife Ltd, Herbalife International Inc & Herbalife
International of America Inc, Defendants, represented by Gopi K.
Panchapakesan - gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com - Bird Marella Boxer
Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg Rhow PC, Mark T. Drooks -
mdrooks@birdmarella.com - Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks
Lincenberg Rhow PC & Paul S. Chan - pchan@birdmarella.com - Bird
Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg Rhow PC.
Mark Addy, Jillian Addy, Dennis Dowdell, Garrain S. Jones, Cody
Morrow, Christopher Reese, Gabriel Sandoval, Emma Sandoval, John
Tartol, Leslie R Stanford, Fernando Rancel, Lori Baker, Manuel
Costa, Mark Davis, Jenny Davis, Danielle Edwards, Graeme Edwards,
Thomas P. Gioiosa, Sandra Gioiosa, Alcides Mejia, Miriam Mejia,
Paulina Riveros, Ron Rosenau, Carol Rosenau, Amber Wick, Jason
Wick, Jorge De La Concepcion, Disney De La Concepcion, Jennifer
Micheli, Guillermo Rasch, Claudia Rasch, Samuel Hendricks, Amy
Hendricks, Bradley Harris, Paymi Romero, Arquimedes G. Valencia,
Ryan Baker, Kristopher Bickerstaff, Mark Matika, Enrique Carillo,
Daniel J. Waldron, Susan Peterson, Michael Katz & Debbie Katz,
Defendants, represented by Zachary Scott Foster -
zachary.foster@quarles.com - Quarles and Brady LLP, pro hac vice.
IKEA: Appeals Court Revives Customers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that an appeals court in
California revived a putative class action against IKEA brought by
customers who claim they were asked to provide their ZIP codes for
"unauthorized purposes" while making in-store credit card
purchases. The court found that the class is "ascertainable."
A copy of the Order is available at:
https://is.gd/pkvoz9
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Mold Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Lexi Haskell, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that
residents from several residence halls were folded into a lawsuit
against Indiana Universiry (IU) in early January after a judge
ruled the case can proceed with class action status. These students
could receive compensation for the mold that was discovered in
campus residence halls last year, pending the result of the suit.
Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Holly Harvey agreed to allow two
groups of 2018-2019 on-campus residents to join the lawsuit --
those provided moldy rooms in Foster Quad, McNutt Quad and Teter
Quad and those who were required to use noisy HEPA air purifiers in
Ashton Center, Collins Center, Hillcrest and Wright Quad. This
ruling groups these students into the lawsuit and does not decide
the case.
The university will appeal the order, IU spokesperson Chuck Carney
said in an email.
"IU is confident that it responded reasonably and appropriately to
the mold issues and concerns," Carney said in the email.
A class action lawsuit comes from a person or group of people on
behalf of others who have an "identical interest in the alleged
wrong," according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
In the aftermath of last year's mold discovery, the university
expedited renovations on Foster and McNutt Quads, bought out beds
in three off-campus apartment complexes and paid out more than $7
million to affected students.
This lawsuit was first filed in fall 2018, but was amended and
extended last January. The Indiana Daily Student reported in April
last year that the university's lawyers claimed in court documents
that IU had no contractual obligation to keep its residence halls
clean.
In response, IU spokesperson Chuck Carney said the university
believes it must keep its residence halls safe, and the
university's legal argument to the contrary was in response to a
specific part of Indiana law.
"To not keep our students in safe living conditions simply defies
logic, given that the success and wellbeing of students is the
reason we exist," Carney wrote.
Since then, a number of the lawsuit's original charges have been
dropped, but questions of contractual obligations IU owes to its
residents remain.
IU filed its response to that January 2019 complaint in September.
The document denied most of the students' lawyers' claims,
including that IU agreed in its contract to provide residence halls
that were "suitable and ready for inhabitation."
"The University wants its students to live in a safe, appropriate
and healthy environment," the response says multiple times, "but
denies the applicability of this legal doctrine or the existence of
any implied warranty."
This legal question could be addressed in court as the case
continues to play out. [GN]
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Rejects Settlement in Bakhtiar Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRAM BAKHTIAR, the Plaintiff,
v. INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order on Jan. 30, 2020 denying without prejudice Bakhtiar's
motion for preliminary approval of Settlement Agreement.
The Court said, "Bakhtiar may file a renewed motion within 45 days
of the date this order is issued. To the 27 extent that Bakhtiar or
the parties make modifications to the Settlement Agreement or the
proposed notice, Bakhtiar shall file a redline showing any such
modifications."
The Court sets a further case management conference for April 7,
2020, at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case management statement is
due March 31, 2020. If Bakhtiar files a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement within 30 days of the date
this order is issued, the Court will vacate the case management
conference.
Information Resources provides big data and predictive analytics
solutions.[CC]
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Bannister Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francine Bannister, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00436-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 29, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other relief relating to the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and other Service Delivery "Analysts" worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek, but were not paid an overtime premium
for their overtime hours, according to the complaint. The Defendant
was aware, or should have been aware, that the Plaintiff and other
Service Delivery "Analysts" were performing non-exempt work that
required payment of overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Service Delivery
Analyst from August 2015 to September 2019.
Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC, is a Georgia domestic limited
liability company and offers proprietary information system
solutions for businesses worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 373-1800
Fax: (404) 373-6999
Email: roger@OrlandoFirm.com
- and -
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Lotus Cannon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Imani Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Kewmarse Imani, behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC. and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Case
No. 19CV54597, was removed from the Oregon Circuit Court, Lane
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on
Jan. 29, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-00160-MC to the
proceeding.
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts twelve counts against JLI,
and three against Altria (noted with an asterisk): (1) Negligence;
(2) Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Strict Product
Liability--Failure to Warn; (4) Strict Product Liability--Design
Defect; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; (6) Fraudulent
Misrepresentation; (7) Oregon Unlawful Trade Practice; (8) Unjust
Enrichment; (9) Violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; (10) Violation of California False Advertising Law; (11)
Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (12) Civil
Conspiracy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Darin M. Sands, Esq.
Mohammed N. Workicho, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204-3158
Phone: 503.778.2100
Facsimile: 503.778.2200
Email: sandsd@lanepowell.com
workichom@lanepowell.com
KLOUDSCRIPT INC: Glen Ellyn's TCPA Claim Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., individually and
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KLOUDSCRIPT,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19 CV 2829 (N.D.
Ill.).
Plaintiff brings a putative class action against Kloudscript and
various John Does who Plaintiff claims were responsible for sending
the faxes. Plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 227(b)(1)(C) of
the TCPA, which prohibits the use of any device to send, to a
telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement to a
telephone facsimile machine. Plaintiff also asserts the following
Illinois state law and tort claims: violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), conversion, and trespass to chattels.
Kloudscript moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety because
Plaintiff lacks standing to proceed on its TCPA claim, has plead
only de minimis injuries for the tort claims, and fails to state a
claim under the ICFA.
STANDARD
Kloudscript moves to dismiss Plaintiff's suit for lack of standing,
an argument that falls under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). Facial challenges require only that the Court look to the
Complaint to see if Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Kloudscript's de minimis challenge standard falls under Rule
12(b)(6), which requires courts to dismiss complaints that fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under Rule 8(a)(2),
a complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
TCPA and Standing
To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege an injury in fact
that is traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by a
favorable judicial decision. An injury in fact is an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Kloudscript urges that Plaintiff's injury is insufficiently
concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent to constitute an
injury-in-fact. Plaintiff's asserted injury is that Kloudscript's
unsolicited faxes deprived Plaintiff of its ink, toner, the use of
its fax machine, and the time it spent identifying the source and
purpose of the fax.
Kloudscript asserts that Plaintiff has alleged nothing more than a
bare violation of a disclosure provision in a consumer protection
statute, in violation of Casillas. (Casillas v. Madison Ave.
Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2019).)
Kloudscript misconstrues the Complaint. The Complaint briefly noted
that Kloudscript's faxes lacked the TCPA's required opt-out
notices. The faxes do not contain an opt out notice that complies
with 47 U.S.C. Section 227. But this observation is not Plaintiff's
alleged injury.
Plaintiff alleges injuries relating to the use of its fax machine,
paper, ink, and employee time, which as the Court noted above, is
sufficient to constitute an injury-in-fact.
Defendant's standing argument therefore fails, and Plaintiff can
proceed with its TCPA claim.
Torts and the De Minimis Exception
Plaintiff brings both conversion and trespass to chattels claims.
To state a claim for conversion under Illinois law, a plaintiff
must allege: (1) he has a right to the property (2) he has an
absolute and unconditional right to the immediate possession of the
property (3) he made a demand for possession; and (4) the defendant
wrongfully and without authorization assumed control, dominion, or
ownership over the property.
Kloudscript does not dispute that the elements of conversion or
trespass to chattels have been satisfied here. Rather, Kloudscript
seeks dismissal of these claims under the de minimis con curat lex
principle, the law does not concern itself with trifles. A
conversion claim that is otherwise adequately pled must fail if the
conversion resulted in damages that are miniscule to the point of
nonexistent. While a court can award nominal damages for
intentionally tortious conduct, a conversion claim is not
actionable if the damages are negligible from the onset of the
lawsuit.
The de minimis doctrine prevents recovery for conversion where the
degree of interference with the right of another to control the
property is minimal.
The Court holds that Plaintiff's damages a few pennies per page of
unsolicited fax received are insufficient to state a claim for
conversion or trespass to chattels. This is not a dismissal of a
legal theory, which would run afoul of Rule 8. It is a dismissal
for failure to state a claim for either conversion or trespass to
chattels, because the Plaintiff's damages are too trivial to
support a cause of action for these claims.
ICFA Claim
To state a cause of action under the ICFA, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) a deceptive act or unfair practice by the defendant (2) an
intention on the part of the defendant that the plaintiff rely on
the unfair practice and (3) that the unfair practice occurred in
the course of conduct involving commerce.
To determine whether a defendant's conduct constitutes an unfair
practice within the meaning of the ICFA, Illinois courts ask
whether the following factors (Robinson factors) are present: (1)
whether the practice offends public policy (2) whether it is
immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous and (3) whether it
causes substantial injury to consumers. Robinson v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 951, 960 (Ill. 2002).
Kloudscript argues that Plaintiff fails to state an ICFA claim
because receiving unsolicited faxes is not an unfair practice.
This Court recently held that the second and third Robinson factors
cut against an ICFA claim in a case involving only a few pages of
unsolicited faxes. Similarly, the conduct at issue here,
essentially, Defendant forcing Plaintiff to print five pages of
advertisements for Defendant is not oppressive. As for the third
factor, a practice causes substantial injury to consumers if it
causes significant harm to the plaintiff and has the potential to
cause injury to a large number of consumers. However, even taking
Plaintiff's allegations as true, that the offending fax was sent to
at least 40 other individuals, the loss is still de minimis.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the second and third Robinson
factors cut strongly in Kloudscript's favor.
Ultimately, Plaintiff does not advance any new arguments that
convince the Court to depart from its previous analysis of this
issue. That two of the three Robinson factors cut strongly in
Kloudscript's favor outweighs that Kloudscript's conduct was
contrary to public policy.
Therefore, the Court dismisses the ICFA count for failure to state
a claim.
Against this backdrop, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has standing to pursue its
TCPA claim. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed,
ruled the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 2, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rvqs96n from Leagle.com.
Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members defined herein, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman
, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs ,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Dulijaza Clark , Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500,
Chicago, IL 60603
KloudScript, Inc., Defendant, represented by Avanti Bakane –
abakane@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Brian H.
Myers – bmyers@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.
KONA BREWING: $2.8MM Atty's Fees in Class Suit Deal Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Rendan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a hearing to approve a settlement between a craft beer brewer and
customers who say they were hoodwinked into believing the beer was
made in an exotic location morphed into a theater to litigate a
much larger issue: whether large consumer class actions actually
benefit consumers.
Florida lawyer Sam Miorelli traveled to San Jose, California, to
complain on behalf of one member of the class that the proposed
settlement was grossly unfair, particularly as the 143,000
consumers who stand to receive some sort of a payment will divide
$1.3 million while the class attorneys will garner $2.9 million in
fees.
Those numbers will hold only if U.S. District Court Judge Beth
Labson Freeman grants final approval to the settlement.
Miorelli says the imbalance between the class members and their
attorneys are the rule rather than the exception in large consumer
class action suits that are settled.
"Almost all of them are unfair," he said.
The current settlement came about after extended litigation between
consumers who bought Kona Beer thinking the beer was brewed in
Hawaii and the Craft Brew Alliance, Kona Brewing's parent company.
Kona beers feature labels with ukuleles, hula dancers, surfers,
leis and other Hawaiian themes. The names of the different beers
such as Longboard Island Lager and Wailua Wheat also evoke the
remote Pacific Island chain.
But the plaintiffs say most of the beer they consume is actually
brewed in Oregon, Washington state, Tennessee and New Hampshire,
with only a small portion actually brewed on the Big Island.
After prevailing in two motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs and the
beer company agreed to a $4.2 million settlement that figured to
grant each customer who bought the beer $10 without receipts and
$20 if they kept the receipt.
But Miorelli says it's not enough.
"The settlement is a bad deal for the plaintiffs,"he said.
He is particularly outraged given that all the litigation and
negotiations ended in an outcome where Kona Brewing Company still
does not have to make it clear that their beer isn't brewed in
Hawaii.
"The attorneys want $2.8 million for that?"he said.
Aubrey Wand, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the
litigation was intensive given the several rounds at the motion to
dismiss phase and the extensive discovery required to prove claims
that the beer was mostly manufactured in the continental United
States.
"It's clear the settlement meets the fair, reasonable and adequate
standard," Wand said during the hearing.
Labson Freeman said she always considers it a judge's duty to ask
tough questions as it relates to attorney fees in consumer class
action and further foreshadowed she would give the attorney fees a
rigorous inspection.
"I do sometimes give these requests a haircut," Freeman said.
The judge demanded a specific accounting of the attorneys' time and
their precise activities. For instance, Freeman told Wand -- who
charges $600 per hour -- that if he engaged in simple tasks that
could have easily been delegated to an attorney with less seniority
and experience, she will not compensate the attorneys for the full
amount requested.
Miorelli asked Freeman to take a different approach and limit the
attorney's fees to 25% of the settlement, which in the present
instance would cut the total amount by $2 million.
He said there was ample guidance in Ninth Circuit cases to limit
attorney fees in such a manner, although Freeman noted there was
nothing in the case law that required her to take such an
approach.
Judging by her comments from the bench, Freeman is more likely to
use a different formula called the lodestar calculation which
entails multiplying the number of hours spent by attorneys on the
case by a reasonable rate.
This means a compromise is likely in the offing, as the class
counsel are unlikely to get the full $2.8 million requested but
probably won't see a reduction to 25% of the settlement as
requested by Miorelli.
For his part, Miorelli says 25% rule should be applied more often
in consumer class action settlements to prevent overcompensation of
attorneys at the expense of their clients.
LEADPOINT INC: Illegally Sends Unsolicited Text Ads, Landy Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEADPOINT, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00915 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendants began to use the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending the
Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text
messages, including a text message sent to and received by
Plaintiff on February 27, 2019. The Plaintiff says he was never a
customer of the Defendants and never provided his cellular
telephone number the Defendants for any reason whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Defendants and their agents never received the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the State of
Pennsylvania.
The Defendant provides leads for consumers of mortgages, loans, and
other purchases.[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
MARRIOTT INT'L: City of Chicago Can Pursue Data Breach Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in Maryland
ruled that the city of Chicago has standing to pursue its claims
against Marriott International relating to a data breach by hackers
who made off with passport numbers, credit card information and
other personal data. The city ordinance under which Chicago has
filed suit is constitutional, the court ruled.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at:
https://is.gd/UKCuS3
MELTWATER NEWS: Ceballos Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Ceballos, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MELTWATER NEWS US, INC. and MELTWATER NEWS US
1, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00657 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2020), seeks
to recover overtime compensation and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges she
consistently worked more than 8 hours per day and more than 40
hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation for all
the hours she worked. She contends that it was the Defendants'
policy to deprive her of her earned overtime wages in violation of
the FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked as Sales Representative for the Defendant.
Meltwater is a digital media intelligence company with 14 offices,
including four office locations in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
mfrandsen@outtengolden.com
- and -
Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Luchetta Filed Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JODI LUCHETTA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00151-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[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
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
METLIFE INC: Lawyer Booted From Class Action Wants $2.6MM Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia law firm is accused of scheming to cheat its former
co-counsel out of nearly $2.6 million in legal fees, according to a
series of court filings related to an $80 million MetLife class
action settlement.
The court awarded more than $26 million in attorney fees as part of
the July settlement, but M. Scott Barrett of Barrett Wylie in
Indiana said his share awarded--more than $134,000--is a fraction
of what he really should have gotten.
In a series of filings entered after the settlement was approved,
Barrett said he was an integral part of the plaintiffs' team until
the lead lawyer, John Bell Jr. of Augusta's Bell & Brigham
"orchestrated" his removal.
Barrett said Bell--with whom he has a long history of co-counseling
on class actions--had insisted that any fees he ultimately received
would be totally at Bell's discretion, "if and when there might be
a fee."
When Barrett protested, Bell purportedly manipulated the lead
plaintiff and class representative, Laura Owens—whom Barrett had
never met—to terminate his representation, which he was obliged
to do.
Barrett argued that, his withdrawal notwithstanding, he should be
paid 10% of the fee award, not a figure calculated on the hours he
put into the case.
"Between April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2017, Barrett was actively
involved in the prosecution of this matter," said his September
motion asking the court to allocate fees.
"During that time, over 140 docket entries were made, including
multiple declarations from Barrett. Motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment had been filed, responded to, and successfully
defeated. Discovery had been completed and an initial motion to
certify the class had been filed."
The settlement agreement approved by U.S. District Judge Richard
Story of Georgia's Northern District allocated $25 million in fees
and $1.6 million in expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel—nine
lawyers, including Barrett.
The others include Bell and his partner, Leroy Brigham; Jason
Carter and Michael Terry of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore; Cleveland,
Georgia, solo Todd Lord; William Dobson and Michael Lober of Lober
& Dobson in LaFayette, Georgia; and Oxendine Law Group principal
John Oxendine.
Ruling on a motion by the plaintiffs' counsel, U.S. District Judge
Richard Story of the Georgia's Northern District used the
"lodestar" method to calculate Barrett's portion of the award based
on the hours he reported working on the case, rather than on a
percentage basis of the fee award.
In his final order approving the settlement, Story specified that
the issue of Barrett's fees would not delay the settlement of the
class' claims.
In a Dec. 26 order, Story said Barrett's share came to $134,311.
Barrett's lawyer, Cochran & Edwards partner R. Randy Edwards, said
in a motion to reconsider that the judge should at minimum reopen
discovery and allow in evidence "because the court's quantum meruit
analysis is devoid of crucial and necessary findings of fact
required under [federal rules] and to make an equitable
allocation.
"This lack of findings has led to the anomalous result that
Barrett's allocation should be a scant one half-of one percent of
the total attorneys' fee. How can this be?" Edwards said.
In response, the remaining plaintiffs lawyers argued that
well-settled Georgia law makes clear that an attorney discharged
from a case before it is resolved is not entitled to a contingency
fee.
Further, they said, Barrett has provided "no evidence of any
services he actually rendered for the benefit of Ms. Owens or the
class she represents."
Story has not yet ruled on Edward's Dec. 31 motion.
Barrett filed another motion on Jan. 7 in opposition to Story's
division of fees after the plaintiffs filed a motion to approve it,
arguing that "limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing" will
allow the court to determine a proper split.
"Alternatively," it said, "if the court is not inclined to do this,
Barrett asks that he be allocated 10% of the total amount of the
fee awarded as a minimum allocation."
In an interview, Edwards said that—should those efforts prove
unavailing—he can "virtually guarantee" that there will be an
appeal.
The 10% figure, he said, is based upon Barrett and Bell's "17-year
track record of working together on these types of cases."
As detailed in Barrett's September motion for allocation, Bell,
Barrett and three other lawyers not involved in the MetLife case
began working together on retained asset account class actions
several years ago.
They originally had a co-counseling agreement that any fee awards
would first split 10% to each firm, with the remainder based on
hours billed.
Bell became "dissatisfied" with the original arrangement, and it
was reworked so that local counsel and the referring lawyer would
each get 10% off the top. Bell's firm got 50% of the balance,
Barrett's got 30%, with the by then two remaining members splitting
the last 20%.
"No one ever got 0.5% of the total, no matter what they did,"
Edwards said.
"Historically, Scott would be responsible for working up discovery,
reviewing documents, determining damages, working with experts and
so on, while John would take depositions and argue in court,"
Edwards said.
"It always worked out that Scott would get 15 or 20% of the award,"
he said. "In this case he was terminated two-thirds of the way
through, and we feel he should be entitled to the minimum to which
he was usually entitled."
Terry declined to discuss the fee dispute.
"All I can say is we're sorry it had to come a judicial resolution,
but it was resolved," he said. "We think Judge Story got it
right."
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Ferrando Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Ferrando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00502-MSG (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.
On February 28, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a debt
collection letter regarding an alleged debt owed. The letter
contains 3 different payment options: Option 1, 10% off; Option 2,
5% off; Option 3, monthly payment as low as $50 a month.
The Plaintiff contends that the third option provided by the
Defendant is not adequately explained and is open to two different
possible interpretations. By failing to explain if Option 3 is a
settlement options or a full pay option, the letter is false,
deceptive and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the
Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practice, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
County of Philadelphia.
MCM is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
MJ PETER & ASSOC: Aguiar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dayana Aguiar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M.J. PETER & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida Corporation;
M.J. PETER CLUB MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation; MRG OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. dba SOLID GOLD GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Florida
Corporation; BEE LINE ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC dba SOLID GOLD
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Florida Limited Liability Company; 1350 FOOD &
BEVERAGE LLC dba SOLID GOLD GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; MICHAEL J. PETER, an individual; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 0:20-cv-60198-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan.
29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages due to the
Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding
with the Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including
in the form of "House Fees."
The Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime
as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and
other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," according
to the complaint. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation
of the FLSA.
The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the
Plaintiff asserts. She adds that the Defendants' practice of
failing to pay tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage
provision.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants
one-and-a-half years ago until late 2019.
The Defendants operate adult-oriented entertainment facilities
located in Pompano Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 722-6977
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and -
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
MONARCH RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANN ZARCZYNSKI and MEGAN
VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MGMT, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00152-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs'
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are 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
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MRS BPO LLC: Faces Ioane Suit Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Ioane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. MRS BPO LLC a/k/a MRS ASSOCIATES OF NEW JERSEY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00040 (D. Haw., Jan. 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system,
delivered text messages to the Plaintiff's cell phone without his
prior express consent, attempting to collect a debt he allegedly
owed, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that these
text messages violated the TCPA, which prohibits the sending of any
text messages to a cellular telephone using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the prior express consent of the person to
whom the text message is sent.
The Defendant also failed to send the Plaintiff a notice of his
federal rights to dispute the debt pursuant to the FDCPA, according
to the complaint. The Defendant has made thousands of identical or
substantially similar text messages to thousands of consumers
throughout the United States and then failed to send those
consumers a notice of their federal rights to dispute the alleged
debts pursuant to the FDCPA.
Mr. Ioane is a citizen and resident of the State of Hawaii.
MRS Associates is a non-governmental corporation organized under
the laws of the United States of America with its principal place
of business in the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
515 Ward Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96814
Phone: (808) 377-6778
Email: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 358-5345-2400
Fax: (212) 571-0284
Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
MYLIFE.COM INC: Faces Dennis Suit in N.J. Over Violation of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Dennis, William Bonvie, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MYLIFE.COM, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00954 (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey common law right of
publicity, and the New Jersey right of privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant promotes itself as
knowingly and deliberately gathering information and preparing
reports that bear upon a consumer's character, general reputation,
personal characteristics or mode of living.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant gathers and sells
information concerning consumers without the consent of the
consumers. The Defendant's purpose behind furnishing reports
concerning searched individuals is to advertise its service of
providing details about the person's identity, character and
reputation for purposes, such as hiring. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendant does not follow reasonable procedures to assure the
maximum possible accuracy regarding the information that it sells
about consumers.
The Defendant's unauthorized use, for a commercial purpose, of an
individual's name or likeness harms that individual by diluting the
value of the name and depriving the individual of compensation
derived from the use of that name or likeness, the Plaintiffs aver.
They add that the information about consumers published by the
Defendant also invades the privacy of consumers protected by New
Jersey law by publicly disclosing private facts, such as the
purported income, net worth or religion of the consumer.
The Defendant has published and continues to publish information
about consumers that violates their rights under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and New Jersey law, the Plaintiffs further assert.
Both Plaintiffs sustained particularized and concrete harm as a
result of the actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing in New Jersey.
MyLife is in the business of selling information about American
citizens over the Internet to the general public, through its Web
site, http://mylife.com/.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abare Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Abare,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00370-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Barrow Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Fred Barrow,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00357-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bradford Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Travis Bradford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Emory &
Henry College, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00358-JPH-MPB (S.D.
Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dworek Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kenneth Dworek, II,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00364-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Farnell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Mark Farnell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Norwich
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00361-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Forte Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Daryl Forte,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00362-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Stacy Hall,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Colgate
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00363-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hartford Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Thurston
Hartford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Trustees of Boston University, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00371-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Humphrey Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Daryl Humphrey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00359-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kolak Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Andrew Kolak,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Bucknell
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00366-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patterson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Shantay
Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Greenville University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00367-JRS-MPB
(S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Pope Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Wesley Pope,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00372-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Quinney Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Gregory Quinney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Tuskegee
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00369-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
Jan. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zarczynski"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00148-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[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
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Charman Sues Alleging Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Thane Charman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:20-cv-00181-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff
for marketing purposes on his cellular telephones in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his
privacy.
The Plaintiff contends that at no time did he 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 has had the same insurance company for over
15 years and, thus, would have never needed the Defendant's
services.
The calls to the Plaintiff were placed via an "automatic telephone
dialing system." Despite his many attempts to ignore and avoid the
Defendant's calls, they continued to call him several more times on
his cellular telephone, the Plaintiff alleges. Through the
Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a
legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically
addressed and protected by the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of
California.
Nationwide provides insurance and financial services for various
products throughout the United States.[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
PEDERSEN COMPANY: Class Cert. for Settlement Purposes Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JESUS REYES, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PLAINTIFFS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN, the Plaintiff, v. PAUL F. PEDERSEN COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION AND BRITTANY PEDERSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04163 (N.D. Ill.), the Parties jointly move the
Court for an order:
1. preliminarily approving the Parties' joint stipulation
of settlement and agreement to settle class action and
other claims;
2. approving class certification for settlement purposes;
3. approving the form and manner of class notice; and
4. scheduling a Fairness Hearing for final approval of
settlement.
Pedersen Company specializes in providing commercial landscaping
services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
The Defendant is represented by:
Kenneth A. Jenero, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 715-5790
PINELLAS COUNTY: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Burton"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN L. BURTON, and all other
veterans and non-veteran minorities similarly situated nka Jamaal
Ali Bilal, aka Superman, the Plaintiff v. FRANK SARIVOLA, Equal
Opportunity Technician, Pinellas County Human Rights Office, KELLY
PERRIZO, Senior Regional Director for Shelter Corporation, THE SRI
SHELTER REVIEW TEAM SCREENING REPORTS, INC., MEGAN ALLIE, Regional
Manager for Shelter Corporation, MARIA LISA GARCIA, Real Estate
Manager for Shelter Corporation, MELISSA ENGEBRETSON, Real Estate
Manager for Shelter Corporation, and VA MEDICAL CENTER BAY PINES
FLORIDA, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-2869-T-35JSS (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Soriven entered an order on Jan. 30, 2020:
1. denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel;
2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
3. denying without prejudice motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis;
4. dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's amended complaint,
as it brings claims on behalf of a class of individuals
whom Plaintiff cannot represent;
5. directing Plaintiff to have up to and including Feb. 20,
2020 to file a second amended complaint that either asserts
claims only on his own behalf, if he continues to proceed
pro se, or on behalf of a purported class, but only if said
claims are brought through a licensed attorney, and
directing Plaintiff to renew his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis at that time;
6. advising Plaintiff that if no second amended complaint is
filed and no request for extension of time is filed
within the timeframe, this case shall be closed without
further notice; and
7. denying Plaintiff's Motion requesting that an Article
III Judge preside over his case and not a Magistrate
Judge.
The Court said, "Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the
appointment of counsel is warranted. Moreover, the Court is not
inclined to direct that a lawyer undertake to pursue a class action
matter."
On November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a
putative class action complaint asserting violations of the Fair
Housing Act.
The Pinellas County Office of Human Rights is committed to
protecting all residents of Pinellas County from cases of
discrimination in the areas of fair housing, employment, public
accommodations, and government programs and assistance. Shelter
Corporation is a real estate management company.[CC]
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid in Fox Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Grey Fox, LLC et al. v.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-03157-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal., Filed May 6, 2016), the Hon.
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order on Jan. 30, 2020,
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
For their first and second claims for declaratory relief, and tenth
claim for injunctive relief under the first provision, the Court
certifies the following class of:
"all owners of real property through which Plains' Line 901
Plaintiffs' motion for class certificationand/or Line 903
passes pursuant to Right-of-Way Grants."
The Plaintiffs Grey Fox LLC, MAZ Properties, Inc., Mark W. Tautrim,
Trustee of the Mark W. Tautrim Revocable Trust, Live Oak Bazzi
Ranch L.P., JTMT, LLC, and Mike and Denise McNutt are appointed to
serve as Class Representatives.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
and Cappello & Noel LLP are appointed to serve as Class Counsel.
Although notice is not required, the Plaintiffs have proposed
direct mail notice to all Class members.
The Court concludes that the proposed Class satisfies all the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). In addition, the Court is
satisfied that the proposed Class's first claim for declaratory
relief, second claim for declaratory relief, and the first
provision of Plaintiffs' tenth claim for injunctive relief for
threatened nuisance satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The
Court concludes that the second provision of the tenth claim is not
appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
This action stems from the May 2015 rupture of an oil pipeline in
Santa Barbara County.
Defendants own and operate two pipelines in Santa Barbara County:
Line 901, an approximately 10-mile pipeline, and the adjoining Line
903, an approximately 130-mile pipeline. The Pipeline runs through
the real properties of Plaintiffs pursuant to written easement
contracts.[CC]
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Hayden v. Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Case No. 20-cv-00367), on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) ("Portola" or the "Company")
securities between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of
only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019. Portola attributed
the result to a $5 million reserve adjustment for short-dated
product, and flat quarter-over-quarter demand.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.98, or
approximately 40%, to close at $14.76 per share on January 10,
2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Portola's internal control over financial
reporting regarding reserve for product returns was not effective;
(2) that Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month
shelf life; (3) that Portola had not established adequate reserve
for returns of prior shipments of short-dated product; (4) that, as
a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to "catch up" on
accounting for return reserves; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Portola securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number
of shares purchased.
Contact:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
888-773-9224
Website: www.glancylaw.com
Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]
PROCOLLECT INC: Mecca Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph N. Mecca, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ProCollect, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00353 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
ProCollect, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE: PRU) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under
20-cv-00545, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Prudential
between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Prudential securities during
the class period, you have until January 27, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead .Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
Prudential describes itself as providing a wide range of insurance,
investment management, and other financial products and services to
both individual and institutional customers throughout the U.S. and
in many other countries.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding Prudential's business and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the
following facts: (a) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in its
Individual Life business segment; (b) the Company was not
over-reserved, but instead, its reported reserves, particularly for
the Individual Life business segment, were insufficient to satisfy
its future policy benefits liabilities; and (c) the Company had
materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income as
a result of flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience.
As a result of this adverse information being withheld from the
market, the price of Prudential common stock was artificially
inflated to more than $105 per share during the Class Period.
On July 31, 2019, after the close of the market, Prudential issued
a press release announcing its financial results for the second
quarter of 2019. The Company's financial results included EPS of
$3.14, which missed analyst consensus estimates of $3.23 by $0.09.
In addition, the Company reported it would take a pre-tax charge of
$208 million as a result of its market experience update and that
the Individual Life business segment had lost $135 million, but did
not provide information concerning the impact of the revised
mortality assumptions on the Company's financial performance going
forward.
On August 1, 2019, Prudential held a conference call (with
presentation slides) for analysts and investors to discuss the
Company's second quarter 2019 financial results, including the $208
million charge to earnings because eof changes in mortality
assumption, which was entirely attributable to the Individual Life
business segment. On the call, Defendants noted the impact of the
change in mortality assumptions on the Company's quarterly
results.
Following Defendants' prepared remarks, analysts sought further
details regarding the surprise earnings miss, the reserve charge in
the Individual Life business segment attributed to the changed
mortality assumptions, including its impact during future periods,
and why the Company was not updating guidance despite indicating
the negative future financial impact of the reported results. Even
more significant, Defendants explained that the change in mortality
assumptions would require a negative earnings impact of $25 million
per quarter for the foreseeable future, wiping out approximately
one third of the earnings attributable to the Individual Life
business segment.
On August 1, 2019, J. P. Morgan issued a report on Prudential and
its second quarter 2019 results, titled "2Q Results Poor, 3Q
Guidance Atrocious," which described the Company's second quarter
results as "poor" and its "EPS guidance [as] even worse".
Also on August 1, 2019, Evercore ISI issued a report on the
Company's second quarter results, titled "A Challenging Quarter,"
noting the significance of the "forward earnings drag expected" as
a result of the changed mortality assumptions in the Individual
Life business segment. Evercore also noted that the slides
accompanying the conference call contained a new revelation that
the Company was seeking to reinsure certain blocks of its
Individual Life business segment.
As a result of these disclosures, including the $208 million
reserve charge, the earnings miss, the negative $25 million
earnings impact in each quarter for the foreseeable future, and the
implied reduction in guidance, Prudential's share price declined
more than 10%, from a close of $101.31 per share on July 31, 2019
to a close of $91.09 per share on August 1, 2019, on massive volume
of more than 7.6 million shares traded.
On August 2, 2019, Prudential filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
second quarter of 2019, which provided additional details
concerning the Company's adjustments to operating income by
segment. As set forth in the Form 10-Q, the Individual Life
business segment performed $178 million worse in the second quarter
of 2019, as compared to second quarter of 2018, primarily due to
the $208 million reserve charge from the annual review.
As a result of these further negative disclosures in the Form 10-Q,
Prudential's share price declined another 5.64%, from a close of
$91.09 per share on August 1, 2019, to $88.56 per share on August
2, 2019, and to $85.95 per share on August 5, 2019 (the next
trading day), on massive volume of more than 4.2 million shares
traded on each of August 2, 2019, and August 5, 2019.
On August 6, 2019, Deutsche Bank issued a report, titled "Lowering
Estimates Post Earnings," which revealed that Prudential's Investor
Relations had been in communication with sell-side analysts
concerning their financial models for the Company and, as a result,
Deutsche Bank was reducing its fiscal year 2019 EPS guidance for
Prudential by more than 4% to $12.25.
These continuing disclosures revealing Prudential's true financial
condition caused its share price to continue to decline, from a
close of $86.23 per share on August 6, 2019 to a close of $85.17
per share on August 7, 2019, and to below $83.00 per share by
August 15, 2019.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]
PURDUE PHARMA: Court Remands DCH Case to Conecuh County Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Remand the case captioned DCH HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 19-0756-WS-C (S.D. Ala.).
The 18 plaintiffs in the case operate hospitals in Alabama. The 46
entity defendants are producers, distributors and retailers (all
pharmacies) of opioids, and the 20 individual defendants are
associated with various of the entity defendants. Kroger is among
the retail pharmacy defendants.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Conecuh
County. The complaint asserts six causes of action: (1) negligence
(2) public nuisance (3) unjust enrichment (4) fraud and deceit (5)
wantonness and (6) civil conspiracy.
Kroger timely removed, identifying the bases of subject matter
jurisdiction as federal question and the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA).
The plaintiffs argue that Kroger has failed to demonstrate
jurisdiction under either count. They further argue that Kroger has
not complied with the unanimous consent requirement for removal.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. Kroger has
also filed a motion to stay consideration of the motion to remand
pending transfer of this action to the pending multi-district
litigation.
Before addressing the motion to remand, the Court must resolve
Kroger's motion to stay consideration of the plaintiffs' motion.
Kroger cites a number of sister courts that have declined to
consider motions to remand prior to transfer to an MDL court, but
Kroger does not acknowledge this Court's opinions setting forth a
framework for deciding such a motion to stay. For this reason,
Kroger's motion to stay is denied, rules the Court.
On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of
showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Kroger suggests the burden is actually on the plaintiff to show the
absence of federal jurisdiction but it misreads Breuer v. Jim's
Concrete, Inc., 538 U.S. 691 (2003).
Section 1441(a) provides that any civil action of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction may
be removed, except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of
Congress.
The complaint asserts six causes of action, all of them sounding in
state law. That is not the end of the matter, because federal
jurisdiction over a state claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1)
necessarily raised (2) actually disputed (3) substantial and (4)
capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the
federal-state balance approved by Congress.
Kroger argues that the complaint's claims against the distributor
and retail defendants require Plaintiffs to establish that
Defendants breached duties established exclusively under federal
law.
Kroger identifies the relevant federal law as the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) and concludes that the Complaint necessarily
raises a federal issue: whether the Distributor Defendants violated
the CSA.
The complaint contains numerous references to the CSA, but that
does not of itself establish that the complaint necessarily raises
a federal issue. The Supreme Court has addressed the meaning of
this phrase in the context of Section 1338(a), which provides for
federal jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of
Congress relating to patent and related intellectual property
concepts:
A claim supported by alternative theories in the complaint may not
form the basis for Section 1338(a) jurisdiction unless patent law
is essential to each of those theories. Because Section 1338(a)
uses the same operative language as 28 U.S.C. Section 1331,
linguistic consistency' requires us to apply the same test to
determine whether a case arises under Section 1338(a) as under
Section1331. Appellate courts have routinely applied Christianson
(Christianson, 486 U.S. at 808).in the Section 1331 context.
Although the plaintiffs relied on this case in support of their
motion to remand, Kroger has failed to acknowledge Christianson or
explain how removal is not defeated by its alternative theories
principle.
Kroger identifies the duties imposed by the CSA and its
implementing regulations, as referenced in the complaint, as duties
to implement effective controls against the diversion of opioids,
to monitor, investigate and report suspicious orders, and to
suspend fulfillment of such orders. The Court agrees that the
complaint asserts the existence of such duties imposed by federal
law; the question is whether the complaint pegs the liability of
any defendant under any pleaded cause of action exclusively to the
violation of this federal law.
According to Kroger, the complaint affirmatively states that it is
the violation of these federally imposed duties that gives rise to
the six asserted causes of action. None of the paragraphs cited by
Kroger remotely support this proposition. On the contrary, it
appears from a review of the complaint that the duties imposed by
the CSA are mentioned largely to demonstrate how clear those duties
running parallel to comparable state duties are and thus to
accentuate how inexcusable was the alleged conduct of these large
entity defendants, which operate on a massive and typically
national scale.
In only one place does the complaint identify the CSA as a source
of duty underlying an asserted claim. Count One, sounding in
negligence, relies in part on negligence per se, and one of the
statutes, violation of which is alleged to establish negligence per
se, is the CSA. To that extent, the complaint relies on federal law
to establish negligence. Count One, however, also relies on Alabama
statutes and regulations to establish negligence per se.
Specifically, it relies on the Alabama Uniform Controlled
Substances Act (AUCSA) and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Kroger scoffs that AUCSA imposes no duty other than to follow
federal law, such that federal law remains the exclusive source of
duty. Kroger cites Ala. Code Section 20-2-57, which requires an
order form for distribution from one registrant to another and
provides that compliance with the provisions of federal law
respecting order forms shall be deemed compliance with this
section.The complaint, however, does not assert a violation of
Section 20-2-57, which is thus irrelevant.
In sum, Kroger has failed to show that the complaint necessarily
raises a federal issue and has therefore failed to meet its burden
of demonstrating the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
Thus, the plaintiffs' motion to remand is granted, rules the Court.
The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Conecuh County.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tntxxt8 from Leagle.com.
The DCH Health Care Authority, Plaintiff, represented by John
Russell Gibson, III , Phelps, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, 1201
Greensboro Avenue, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, Steven A. Martino , Taylor
Martino, P.C., 455 St. Louis Street Suite 2100, Mobile, Alabama
36602, Robert C. King , Weaver & King, PC & W. Lloyd Copeland ,
Taylor Martino Zarzaur, P.C., 455 St. Louis Street Suite 2100,
Mobile, Alabama 36602
The Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health, An Affiliate of UAB
Health System, Medical West Hospital Authority, An Affiliate of UAB
Health System, Evergreen Medical Center, LLC, Gilliard Health
Services, Inc., Crestwood Healthcare, L.P., Triad of Alabama, LLC,
QHG of Enterprise, Inc., Affinity Hospital, LLC, Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC, Foley Hospital Corporation, BBH SBMC, LLC, BBH
PBMC, LLC, WBMC, LLC, BBH CBMC, LLC & BBH BMC, LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by Steven A. Martino , Taylor Martino, P.C., Robert C.
King , Weaver & King, PC & W. Lloyd Copeland , Taylor Martino
Zarzaur, P.C.
The Healthcare Authority of Clarke County, Alabama & BBH,
Plaintiffs, represented by Steven A. Martino , Taylor Martino, P.C.
& Robert C. King , Weaver & King, PC.
Purdue Pharma, L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc. & The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Blair G. Mattei -
bgm@frazergreene.com.
RC HOTELS: Gomez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Gomez, as an individual and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. R.C. HOTELS, INC.., a California corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01127855-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid premium wages for missed meal and breaks,
statutory penalties and other relief under the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California
common law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had a consistent policy
and/or practice of failing to compensate employees at the correct
overtime rates; failing to provide adequate on-duty rest periods;
and failing to furnish timely itemized statements.
Ms. Gomez worked as non-exempt employee at the Defendants.
The Defendant is a California corporation doing business in the
State of California and operate a hotel establishment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON LAW, APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 281-6857
Fax: (949) 777-6218
RIPPLE LABS: Judge Prepares Decision in XRP Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jake Simmons, writing for Crypto News Flash, reports that the
hearing of Ripple's motion to dismiss the class action suit against
Ripple Labs took place on Jan. 15. The company behind the
cryptocurrency XRP had most recently filed a motion to dismiss the
class action suit because lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack failed to
file a suit within three years of the original purchase of XRP. In
doing so, Ripple is attempting to avoid the actual charge of an
unregistered sale of securities to retail investors in the United
States.
A number of Ripple (XRP) investors - three lawsuits (Zakinov,
Oconer and Greenwald) have been combined - claim that due to a lack
of information about the (illegal) sale of XRP, they made an
investment in Ripple and lost money as a result. The plaintiffs are
seeking to have XRP classified as a security under US law in order
to be able to claim compensation for their losses.
Court decision likely to bring little clarity to Ripple
According to a published document of the competent court, the judge
has taken the case "under submission", which means that she will
issue a written decision at a later date. This can take days, weeks
or months. However, observers of the case assume that the judge's
decision will not have much influence on the decision whether XRP
is a security. The decision will be made by the American exchange
supervisory authority, the SEC.
Jake Chervinsky, Esq., a renowned lawyer in the crypto field,
explained via Twitter:
"Even if Ripple wins its motion to dismiss & has the whole
class action thrown out, it won't mean much for XRP.
"The big & interesting question is if XRP was (or is) a
security.
Ripple's motion didn't ask that question, so dismissal won't
answer it - just defer it to another day."
Chervinsky and other crypto experts see Ripple Labs' rejection
motion based on formal reasons as a delaying strategy to further
postpone a decision on the core question. A dismissal of the
lawsuit would probably result in a new lawsuit. The delaying tactic
could also favour Ripple Labs to the extent that time is on
Ripple's side.
The longer the decision takes, the more likely it is that even if
XRP was once a security, it will not be in the future. A similar
decision was observed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) with Ethereum. The CFTC decided, irrespective of the
question whether Ether (ETH) was a security at the time of the
Initial Coin Offering (ICO), that ETH is currently not a security
because of the central development of the project.
The more external projects are developed on the XRP ledger, like
Sologenic, and use the XRP token, the more likely it could be that
XRP is not a security at a later point in time, as Chervinsky also
noted.
Garlinghouse rejects claim as "outrageous"
A few days before the hearing, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse stated
that the lawsuit is " outrageous". In a CNBC interview, he said:
"My view of this is it's pretty outrageous. Here's somebody who
held XRP for, I think, two weeks' time and is making some claims.
Whether or not XRP is a security is not going to be dictated by one
lawsuit.
"Obviously, the SEC of the United States is the governor of that,
and I think it's very clear that XRP is not a security. It exists
independently of Ripple the company. If Ripple the company shut
down tomorrow, the XRP ecosystem would continue to exist. [. . .]
And ultimately, XRP has a lot of utility, so to me it's quite
different than what a security looks like." [GN]
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Helping Hands Sues for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selective Insurance
Company of South Carolina. The case is styled as Helping Hands Home
Improvement, LLC, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Selective Insurance Company of South
Carolina, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00092 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 31,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
products including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, and mobile
homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily Alcorn, Esq.
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC - Franklin
341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Phone: (615) 354-1144
Fax: (731) 664-1540
Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com
bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
Larson King, LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (651) 312-5510
Fax: (651) 312-6618
Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
STARZ ENTERTAINMENT: XL Says Company Owes $10MM for Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that XL Specialty Insurance Co.
claims in superior court that Starz Entertainment owes it $10
million for the $92.5 million shareholder class action settlement
after Starz was purchased by Lions Gate.
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Hahn"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN HAHN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC and FIRST PORTFOLIO VENTURES I
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00150-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[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
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
SUMMIT HEALTH: Braunshtein Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Pavel Joseph Braunshtein, as an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUMMIT
HEALTH INC. D/B/A/ RETAIL HEALTH NETWORK, INC., a Michigan
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 19STCV37004, 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. 29, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00937 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class are entitled
to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest period
premiums, business expenses, penalties, costs, attorneys' fees and
restitution in unspecified amounts.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan M. Brenner, Esq.
Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
Phone: 310.556.8861
Facsimile: 310.553.2165
Email: jbrenner@ebglaw.com
ksullivan@ebglaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMA: Class of Patients Satisfies RICO Suit Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled that
a putative class of patients and third-party payers of health and
welfare benefits have satisfied RICO's proximate cause requirement
in their suit claiming pharmaceutical companies refused to inform
the public that the drug Actos increased a patient's risk of
bladder cancer.
A copy of the Opinion is available at:
https://is.gd/usrU4Z
TANNERS II INC: Fleming Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanners II, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Rebekah Fleming, H.R., a Minor, by
Rebekah Fleming, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Tanners II, Inc., Susan Brunette, Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-06010-RTD (W.D. Ark., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tanners II, Inc. is a for-profit Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TEXAS PREMIER: Clayton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delas Clayton, and all others similarly situated v. TEXAS PREMIER
RESOURCES, LLC, and, WILLIE BROWN, JR., Case No. 4:20-cv-00325
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 29, 2020), seeks damages for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' management required the
Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The
Plaintiff worked overtime in numerous workweeks while employed by
the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from
May 2019 through October 2019 as a Driver.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had a policy and practice
of arbitrarily reducing the amount of time for which the Plaintiff
was paid. The Plaintiff worked a total of 80 regular hours and 45
overtime hours. However, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff for only
paid 80 regular hours and 33 overtime hours, says the complaint.
Texas Premier Resources, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Texas, and primarily
operates a trucking business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com
TEXAS: TDCJ Sanctioned for Violating Prison Temperatures Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in Texas
sanctioned the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and its
executive director for violating a $4.5 million settlement
agreement in which they agreed to fix faulty air conditioning in
housing that exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer.
The court ruled that the class counsel may take up to five
depositions of department officials and pay for plaintiffs'
attorney fees.
A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at:
https://is.gd/wIWjeE
TRAVELCENTER INC: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRAVELCENTER, INC.
The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELCENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00548-JD (E.D. Pa., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Travelcenter, Inc., doing business as Boscov's Travel, operates as
a travel agency. The Company offers travel and tour packages to
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Trulieve Cannabis Corp. (TCNNF) between September 25,
2018 and December 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Trulieve investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Trulieve class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1745.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) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets;
(2) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3)
Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale
with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
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
28, 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-1745.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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]
UB TECHNOLOGY: Elhendi Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Elhendi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UB TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS, INC. d/b/a BI HEALTH
INSURANCE, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00192 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services,
according to the complaint. The Defendant's calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes.
The Plaintiff contends that 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 Plaintiff requested for the
Defendant to stop calling the Plaintiff during one of the initial
calls from the Defendant, thus, revoking any prior express consent
that had existed and terminating any established business
relationship that had existed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and residing in Irvine,
California.
UB Technology Innovations, Inc. (UBTI) provides application
development, data integration, and cloud services to modernize and
automate systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, 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
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
UBER: Won't Be Forced to Treat California Drivers as Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge refused to make Uber reclassify drivers as
employees in California, despite claims the alleged
misclassification deprives the state of tax dollars and increases
its spending on public assistance for low-paid workers.
Rejecting claims that a proposed injunction would primarily benefit
the general public, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen declined to
treat the requested relief as a motion for a "public injunction" as
defined in the 2017 Fifth Appellate District ruling McGill v.
Citibank.
Uber driver and lead plaintiff Thomas Colopy "is seeking a private,
not public, injunction," Chen wrote in his 18-page ruling.
Chen noted the Ninth Circuit strongly disfavors granting class-wide
injunctions in cases like Colopy's where a class has not yet been
certified. He further emphasized that because many California Uber
drivers have signed arbitration agreements barring them from
pursuing labor disputes in court, "the number of drivers entitled
to injunctive relief is likely to be a small subset of all
drivers."
At a hearing in November, veteran labor rights attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan argued that Uber's employment practices not only
affect drivers but an "entire industry, many have said an entire
economy" based on depriving workers of their rights under the
California labor code.
Uber attorney Theane Evangelis, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los
Angeles, argued an injunction is wholly unnecessary because drivers
can still get monetary damages for any violation of law after the
case is resolved.
The Uber attorney insisted that no evidence supports the
"extraordinary remedy" of a preliminary injunction that would
"fundamentally alter Uber's entire business model."
Chen found the lack of information on how many California drivers
opted out of arbitration agreements "underscores the prematurity of
Mr. Colopy's motion for broad preliminary injunctive relief."
Colopy's lawsuit is one of the first labor class actions filed
against Uber since California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly
Bill 5 into law in September. The new state law, which took effect
Jan. 1, requires employers like Uber classify drivers as employees
rather than independent contractors, making them eligible for
benefits such as minimum wage, overtime, sick pay, expense
reimbursement and workers' compensation.
Uber has said it will continue classifying drivers this year as
contractors because it believes its drivers are not employees under
the three-part "ABC test" established in the California Supreme
Court's 2018 Dynamex decision and written into law by Assembly Bill
5. Uber is one of three companies that vowed to pour $30 million
each into a 2020 ballot measure aimed at overturning the new state
labor law.
Liss-Riordan noted the California Legislature specifically
recognized public harm caused by worker misclassification when it
passed AB5 earlier last year. The text of the law states that
worker misclassification has been "a significant factor in the
erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality."
Despite Liss-Riordan's fervent advocacy in favor of making Uber
change its labor practices, Chen concluded a private dispute over
worker misclassification and wages could justify a preliminary
injunction to remedy alleged harm to the general public.
However, Chen rejected Uber's motion to dismiss claims that it
misclassified workers as contractors and failed to reimburse job
expenses, such as gas, vehicle maintenance, car insurance and phone
and data plans.
The judge dismissed a claim of willful misclassification with
prejudice, finding the California Legislature did not create a
private right of action for people to sue over that violation of
the law. Chen also dismissed claims for overtime and minimum wage
with leave to amend, finding Colopy failed to specify how much he
was paid and how many hours he worked. Colopy will have an
opportunity to add those details to an amended complaint.
Liss-Riordan had argued the actual amount of time her client spent
as a driver on the Uber app could be easily ascertained from Uber's
records, adding she does not believe that level of detail is
required at this early stage of the litigation. Chen disagreed.
The judge also rejected Uber's motion to strike class allegations
from the lawsuit.
Reached for comment by email, Liss-Riordan said she and her client
were pleased with Judge Chen's partial denial of Uber's motion to
dismiss and rejection of the request to strike class claims. She
said they would amend the complaint with new details on Uber's
alleged wage and hour violations.
"While the court declined to grant our request for injunctive
relief on a preliminary basis, the court left open the possibility
that we may obtain injunctive relief on a permanent basis later in
the case," Liss-Riordan said. "So we look forward to proceeding
with the case and at last requiring Uber to comply with California
law and stop depriving its drivers of their basic rights under the
California Labor Code."
An Uber spokesman declined to comment. Uber's attorney, Evangelis,
did not immediately return an email request for comment.
UNION RAILROAD: Improperly Terminates Aged Workers, Marsh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Marsh, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC, TRANSTAR, LLC, UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION and SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, Case No.
2:20-cv-00133-RJC (W.D. Pa., Jan. 29, 2020), seeks damages for
alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
arising from the Plaintiff's improper termination.
The Defendants initiated a pretextual scheme to terminate Union
Railroad employees over age 40, the Plaintiff asserts. Among other
things, the Defendants' scheme included forcing many Senior
Employees to sign "last chance" agreements intended for employees
with substance abuse problems, then manipulating Union Railroad's
demerits policy to issue a disproportionate number of demerits to
Senior Employees so they could be fired for cause.
Conversely, younger employees alleged to have committed the same or
comparable offenses as the Plaintiff and other Senior Employees
routinely received no demerits, substantially less demerits or were
given an opportunity to expunge demerits from their records over
time, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff and 90 similarly
situated former Union Railroad employees were victims of a
discriminatory pattern and practice designed to weed out Senior
Employees on the basis of their age, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for nearly 12 years as a brakeman and, most
recently, a conductor/remote control operator and was improperly
terminated at the age of 57.
Union Railroad is a for–profit corporation rail transportation
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
Paola Pearson, Esq.
ANAPOL WEISS
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-735-1130
Fax: 215-875-7701
Email: sweiss@anapolweiss.com
ppearson@anapolweiss.com
- and -
Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq.
EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES
U.S. Steel Tower, 10th Floor
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-391-2101
Fax: 412-391-7032
Email: ssugiura@edgarsnyder.com
US STEEL: Attys. Seek Claimants Qualified to Get Settlement Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Johnson, writing for WPXI News, reports that a legal clinic
was held January 9, 2010, in Clairton for people who could be
involved in a class-action lawsuit against US Steel and don't know
about.
More than 5,000 households in the Mon Valley are getting $2 million
after residents agreed to a proposed settlement with U.S. Steel --
saying they deserve to live a clean and healthy life.
The lawsuit was filed in 2017, claiming the corporation was
negligent with the operation of Clairton Coke Works.
Not only will U.S. Steel pay the settlement, but the company also
agreed to invest at least $6.5 million in technology upgrades. This
is not only impacting people in Clairton -- it's affecting those in
Elizabeth, Glassport, Liberty and Lincoln.
A notice went out to more than 5,000 households to make them aware
of the pending settlement, but some families still aren't sure if
they qualify.
On January 9, they got the chance to talk one-on-one with an
attorney to get more details about the settlement. Attorneys
answered questions about how the settlement would work if it's
finalized.
Supervising Attorney Ryan Hamilton, Esq. said neighbors who opt in
to the settlement had until Feb. 4 to mail in their claim for
payment. They had until Jan. 20 to opt out of the agreement. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Leads Class Action Over Faulty Sunroof
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that Sokol
Gjonbalaj has become the lead plaintiff in a class action
complaint, filed in New York, against Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. and Volkswagen AG (collectively VW). Gjonbalaj alleges the
carmaker "knowingly used deceptive practices, to sell tens of
thousands of class vehicles with sunroofs that have inherent design
and manufacturing flaws." Gjonbalaj is seeking a trial by jury
along with financial compensation.
"[The known flaws] cause leaks resulting in damage to the vehicles'
interior, including electrical systems, audio systems, upholstery,
carpet, roof headliners, seats, and more," a portion of the
complaint reads.
The VW models that make up the "class vehicles" in this suit are
the 2015-present Audi A1 Mk2, Audi A3 Mk3, Audi TT Mk3, Audi Q2,
Audi Q3, Volkswagen Arteon, Volkswagen Atlas/Teramont, Volkswagen
Golf, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Polo,
Volkswagen Tiguan, and Volkswagen Touran that are sold with a
sunroof. Gjonbalaj noted the sunroof design is similar for all of
the class vehicles.
The complaint alleges VW was aware of the sunroof defect and
continued to sell the aforementioned vehicles to its consumers
since 2016.
"VW wrongly profits on its defective sunroofs because it has known
of the sunroofs' defective nature for years and VW never informs
consumers of the defect; never warns about the consequences of the
defect; actively conceals the defect from consumers; and fails to
live up to the express and implied warranties it made through its
warranty materials, advertisements, and other contractual
agreements and promises made to consumers," Gjonbalaj said in his
complaint.
VW issued a number of technical service bulletins (TSBs) related to
the defective sunroofs. In addition, there were several VW vehicle
owners who complained about having the same sunroof issues via
blogs, VW group websites, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), social media, and other forums, according
to the complaint.
According to the complaint, there are six claims against VW, some
of which include:
Breach of express warranties;
Breach of implies warranties;
Violation of MMWA Inc.; and
Unjust enrichment.
Gjonbalaj's Experience
Gjonbalaj purchased his 2018 VW Tiguan in August 2017. He stated at
no time prior to, during, or after his purchase, did VW inform him
that his class of vehicle contained the sunroof defect. According
to the complaint, Gjonbalaj experienced approximately four separate
leak events in his vehicle, which he claims is due to the sunroof
defect.
"Each leak has occurred in the rain and some occurred while
Gjonbalaj was driving on the road. On or about October 11, 2018,
while it was raining outside, Gjonbalaj experienced the first
sunroof leak," a portion of the complaint reads.
Following the first sunroof leak incident Gjonbalaj took the
vehicle to a Volkswagen dealer for a repair. The VW dealer kept the
car for approximately two weeks, at which time, the VW dealer
claimed that it could not replicate the leak and returned the
vehicle to Gjonbalaj.
On or about November 13, 2019, while Gjonbalaj was driving in the
rain, he experienced another sunroof leak. He took his vehicle back
to the dealer where a hose test was performed and after one week of
being without his vehicle, Gjonbalaj was told the dealer could not
replicate the leak. According to his complaint, this happened at
least two more times.
Due to the allegations mentioned in Gjonbalaj's class action
complaint, he is seeking a trial by jury. As of press time VW has
yet to respond to the class action complaint. Look to a future
edition of glassBYTEs for more information on this suit. [GN]
WHATSAPP INC: Illegally Sends Unwanted Automated Texts, May Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna-Marie May, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHATSAPP INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00659 (N.D. Cal., Jan.
29, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in sending
automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and
the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the
country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant utilized an "automatic
telephone dialing system" because all such text messages were sent
from a dedicated SMS short code used for the exclusive purpose of
transmitting text messages to consumers. All of the subject text
messages received by the Plaintiff and the members of the putative
Class were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without
their requisite prior "express consent," the Plaintiff contends.
Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts her whenever she
receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted
by or on behalf of the Defendant to her number invaded her privacy
and intruded upon her seclusion upon receipt, Ms. May asserts.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Fontana, California.
WhatsApp Inc. is a cross-platform messaging and voice-over-IP
service that allows users to send text messages and voice
messages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
WHELAN SECURITY: Faces Goto Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whelan Security of
California Inc. The case is captioned as MICHAEL ANTHONY GOTO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WHELAN
SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and DOES 1 TO
10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20582164 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty.).
A case management conference is set for June 10, 2020.
Whelan is a leading provider of integrated security solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
WOODALL LAW OFFICES
100 Pine St., Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 413-4629
Facsimile: (866) 937-4109
E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com
WYNDHAM VACATION: Violated Consumer Protection Laws, Carroll Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CARROLL and ASHLEY CARROLL v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.
and COMENITY LLC d/b/a COMENITY BANK, Case No.
6:20-cv-00028-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated seeking
relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and alleging that the
Defendants violated the Military Lending Act, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Wyndham "is the world's largest
timeshare business, with 224 resorts and approximately 880,000
owners. Comenity is a major credit card issuer with over 50 million
cardholders. Together, they sell and finance thousands of
timeshares to consumers nationwide using unfair, deceptive, and
unconscionable conduct, the Plaintiffs allege.
As creditors, the Defendants have a duty under the MLA to verify
whether a potential borrower is active duty military or a dependent
of an active duty military member before the credit agreement is
consummated, but they allegedly fail to satisfy this obligation,
according to the complaint.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants systematically violate
the MLA because they issue credit using standard form credit
agreements and applications that omit mandatory financial
disclosures required under the MLA.
The Defendants' misconduct inevitably leads to rampant violations
of consumer protection laws like the MLA and substantial injury to
consumers and Covered Borrowers. The Plaintiffs seek to hold the
Defendants accountable for violating the MLA and FCCPA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 342-2103
E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 822-3446
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: darren@cloorg.com
- and -
Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 954-962-2333
E-mail: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com
ZUMPER INC: Court Compels Arbitration in Gonzalez-Torres FRCA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned LUIS ARMANDO GONZALEZ-TORRES,
Plaintiff, v. ZUMPER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02183-PJH,
(N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Luis Armando Gonzalez-Torres filed a class-action
complaint against Zumper, originating this action. Zumper operates
a website that enables prospective renters to search and apply for
apartment rentals, and allows landlords and realtors to evaluate
and communicate with prospective tenants. Plaintiff signed up for
and used the website as a prospective renter looking for an
apartment to rent.
The complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), for failing to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the
information it reported about prospective renters when preparing
reports about them (2) violation of California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), based on the same conduct (3)
violation of FCRA, for failing to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation to determine whether plaintiff's disputes about
inaccuracies in his record were accurate, or delete the disputed
item within 30 days (4) violation of CCRAA, based on the same
conduct (5) violation of FCRA, for charging plaintiff more than the
maximum allowable amount to disclose all information in plaintiff's
Zumper file; (6) violation of FCRA, for failure to disclose to
plaintiff the sources of the public record information it includes
in the Zumper file and (7) violation of CCRAA, for the same
conduct.
Zumper filed the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.
Zumper argues that plaintiff and Zumper entered into an enforceable
arbitration agreement encompassing plaintiff's claims when
plaintiff created a Zumper account.
Legal Standard
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1, et seq.
(FAA), any party bound to an arbitration agreement that falls
within the scope of the FAA may bring a motion in federal district
court to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding pending
resolution of the arbitration.
In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, the
district court's role is typically limited to determining whether
(i) an agreement exists between the parties to arbitrate; (ii) the
claims at issue fall within the scope of the agreement; and (iii)
the agreement is valid and enforceable. If the answers are yes, the
court must enforce the agreement.
Motion to Stay
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the
United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an
agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such
suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in
such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an
agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the
trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Therefore, if the court has determined that the arbitration
agreement is valid, and that the dispute falls within its terms,
the court must stay further proceedings pending arbitration.
First, plaintiff disputes that the parties formed an agreement to
arbitrate. Second, he argues that if an agreement to arbitrate was
formed, it is unconscionable. Third, he argues that if an
enforceable arbitration agreement exists, he asserts claims that
are not subject to arbitration. The court addresses each issue in
turn.
Whether an Agreement to Arbitrate was Formed
In California, mutual consent is gathered from the reasonable
meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from their
unexpressed intentions or understanding. The terms of a contract
ordinarily are to be determined by an external, not an internal,
standard; the outward manifestation or expression of assent is the
controlling factor.
When an offer is accepted, a party who is bound by a contract is
bound by all its terms, whether or not the party was aware of them.
A party cannot avoid the terms of a contract on the ground that he
or she failed to read it before signing.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not dispute that, before
creating his account, he was presented with a link to Terms and
Conditions. The same screen also provided that By creating a Zumper
account you indicate your acceptance of our Terms and Conditions
and Privacy Policy. The entirety of the account creation window,
including that text, was immediately visible and did not require
any scrolling to read. The words Terms and Conditions and Privacy
Policy appeared in blue, indicating they were hyperlinks, whereas
the rest of the sentence including the word and between the two
blue phrases appeared in black.
The Agreement's language here is clear, and the parties' actions
evidence mutual consent to the linked-to terms. The signup page
clearly incorporates the linked-to terms, and although the heading
is different from the linked text, a reasonable person reading that
document would understand that it contained the terms agreed to
when creating an account.
Second, plaintiff argues that there was no mutual assent to the
arbitration clause because, after the account creation process was
complete, Zumper displayed a pop-up screen with the heading Terms
and Conditions.
Given the existence of that pop-up screen, plaintiff argues that it
was ambiguous as to which set of terms the user agreed when
creating his account. But by the time a user would have been
presented with this new pop-up screen, the user would have already
created an account and therefore have already entered into the
Agreement, which included a provision requiring arbitration of
certain disputes. Plaintiff's argument that these separate terms
and conditions were presented simply alleges a separate contractual
agreement. But plaintiff has not argued that the terms of this
second agreement revoked or superseded the arbitration provision in
the Agreement entered into during account creation, note the
Court.
The court finds that defendant has met its burden to establish that
the Agreement containing an arbitration provision was entered into
by the parties.
Whether the Agreement is Unconscionable
Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract
found to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, or may
limit the application of any unconscionable clause.
To determine whether the arbitration agreement is procedurally
unconscionable the court must examine the manner in which the
contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the parties at
that time.
Procedural unconscionability requires oppression or surprise.
Oppression occurs where a contract involves lack of negotiation and
meaningful choice.
A contract is oppressive if an inequality of bargaining power
between the parties precludes the weaker party from enjoying a
meaningful opportunity to negotiate and choose the terms of the
contract.
Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an
agreement's actual terms and to assessments of whether they are
overly harsh or one-sided. A contract term is not substantively
unconscionable when it merely gives one side a greater benefit,
rather, the term must be so one-sided as to shock the conscience.An
arbitration agreement must call for arbitration that meets certain
minimum requirements, including neutrality of the arbitrator, the
provision of adequate discovery, a written decision that will
permit a limited form of judicial review, and limitations on the
costs of arbitration.
The court assumes without deciding that the Agreement was
procedurally unconscionable.
First, plaintiff argues that the Agreement eliminates the
availability of public injunctive relief in any forum, in violation
of the law. The Agreement does not do that, as discussed below.
Second, plaintiff argues the Agreement is not mutual because it
allows all parties to litigate in court rather than arbitrating
intellectual property disputes. Plaintiff concedes that term is
facially mutual. But he argues that defendant is more likely than
its contracting partners to originate intellectual property
disputes, so in practical effect the term is not mutual.
Here, it is speculative whether Zumper or those who enter into this
Agreement by creating an account which include realtors and other
professionals) are more likely to originate an intellectual
property dispute and/or benefit from this provision, says the
court.
Third, plaintiff argues that the Agreement generally separate from
the arbitration provision does not allow for punitive or special
damages. Defendant responds that the same section of the Agreement
provides that SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR
EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES OR OF LIABILITY, SO SOME OF THE ABOVE
LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Reading the section in its entirety, it provides for its own
inapplicability in jurisdictions where it would limit
statutorily-imposed damages and as a result be unconscionable. As
such, this provision does not render the Agreement unconscionable.
Fourth, plaintiff argues that given the above-argued substantive
problems in combination, the entire Agreement should be deemed
unenforceable rather than excise any offending provisions.
Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) provides that if the
court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the
contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the
court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the
remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it
may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to
avoid any unconscionable result.
Here, to the extent there are unconscionable provisions, they are
discrete, easily excisable, and do not concern the central purpose
of the Agreement. As such, even if any of the provisions plaintiff
has identified were in fact unconscionable none of which relate to
arbitration of this non-intellectual-property-based dispute, the
court would excise them rather than render the entire Agreement
unenforceable.
The Agreement is not unconscionable, rules the Court.
Whether Claims for Public Injunctive Relief Can be Arbitrated
Plaintiff argues that he asserts claims for public injunctive
relief, which the arbitration agreement does not allow to be
arbitrated.
Defendant argues that the Agreement allows the arbitrator to award
public injunctive relief.
State contract defenses may invalidate arbitration clauses if those
defenses apply to contracts generally. Contracts that prevent all
adjudication of public injunctive relief in any forum are
impermissible under California law. That includes contracts that
compel all claims to arbitration, yet only allow an arbitrator to
award relief affecting the individual who brought the claim.
Here, the Agreement requires that all disputes arising out of or
relating to this Agreement, the Website or the Services shall be
resolved exclusively by binding arbitration before a single
arbitrator.
Next, the Agreement provides that The Arbitrator shall have
authority to issue any and all remedies authorized by law.
Read together, those terms provide that claims must be brought and
arbitrated individually, and the arbitrator may award any and all
remedies authorized by law including public injunctive relief when
adjudicating those individually-asserted claims.
Although a plaintiff may not assert claims on behalf of a class in
arbitration, the Agreement does not prohibit plaintiff from being
awarded public injunctive relief as a remedy for his
individually-asserted claims in arbitration. As such, the Agreement
does not prevent plaintiff from obtaining public injunctive relief
in any forum.
Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff is COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE HIS
CLAIMS AGAINST ZUMPER in accordance with this order. The entire
action is hereby STAYED until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement, adds the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/szu3zba from Leagle.com.
Luis Armando Gonzalez-Torres, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Soumilas -
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.,
Justin Michael Baxter - justin@baxterlaw.com - pro hac vice, Samira
Ghazal, Law Offices of Samira Ghazal, PA, 1909 SW 27th Avenue,
Miami, FL 33145, pro hac vice & Erika Angelos Heath -
erika@heathlegal.com - Duckworth & Peters LLP.
Zumper, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Mark Goldstein, Esq.
- dgoldstein@fbj-law.com - Farmer Brownstein Jaeger & Goldstein
LLP, John Andrew Shope - jshope@foleyhoag.com - Foley Hoag LLP, pro
hac vice, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger & Goldstein
LLP, 235 Montgomery St. Ste. 835, San Francisco, California, 94104
& Kevin James Conroy, Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice.
*********
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 ***