/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 27 Headlines AARP INC: Gozdenovich Moves for Rule 23(b) Class Certification ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 10 Deadline AECOM: Sanders FCRA Suit Challenges Use of Consumer Reports ALLMERICA FINANCIAL: Faces Cohen Suit Alleging Breach of Policy ARQULE INC: Faces Assad Suit over Proposed Merck Merger ASCENA RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Catoliato et al. Say AT&T INC: Kantz Sues in Pennsylvania Alleging Age Discrimination ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Deceptive Labeling Suit Deal Gets Initial OK AURORA CANNABIS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit BB INSURANCE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Hours, Hammer Claims BECKER ELECTRONICS: Jadan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Jimenez Suit with Prejudice CANADA: Class Action Launched Over Trailing Commissions to Brokers CHICAGO, IL: Smith Moves for Certification of Rule 23(b) Classes CITI TRENDS INC: Smith Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Files Class Suit in Arizona COMODO GROUP: Johnson's Bid for Class Certification Granted CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Suit Certified as Collective Action CORNELL PACE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Catillo et al. Claim CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Misuses Ohioans' Financial Data, Hopper Says D & M: Blumenthal Files Class Suit Over Driver Misclassification DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Seeks to Notify Class of Settlement DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lewis Moves to Certify 2 Arrestees Classes EL MARINERO RESTAURANT: Denied Justo Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay EXELON CORP: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 14 Motion Deadline EXELON CORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action FACEBOOK INC: App. Developers Sue for Illegal Monopolistic Behavior FARMERS GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Grigson Suit Dismissed FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed w/out Prejudice FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Pre-Certification Discovery Schedule FEDEX GROUND: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bachanov Alleges FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE: Lalli Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 2 Deadline FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Remanded to Raleigh County Circuit Court GAIA HERBS INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Objections to Final Order in Teachers Suit Nixed GERON CORP: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action GLOBAL PROCESSING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Benning Claims GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline HEALTH QUEST: Patient Files Class Action Over Phishing Attack HILTON HOTELS: White Renews Bid for ERISA Class Certification HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Barber's Bid to Certify Class Action Denied HOUSTON COUNTY: Renewed Bid to Certify Class Action Denied IQVIA INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed JAKARTA PROVINCE: Has Yet to Receive Class Action Lawsuit for Flood JONES LANG: WDES Seeks Certification of Class, Subclasses KANSAS: Lynn Files Civil Rights Suit v. DOC, et al. KEURIG GREEN: Dismissal Bid on Smith Suit to be Heard March 5 LIBERTY PROPERTY: Garfield Securities Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CPT Group Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval MAYA AUTHENTIC: Salazar Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Illegal Tip Pool MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings METHODIST HOSPITALS: Johnson Sues Over Cyberattack & Data Breach MIAMI BEACH REALTY: Dressel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls MICH. STATE UNIV. FEDERAL: Prelim. OK of $5MM NSF Suit Deal Sought MIDLAND CREDIT: Meyer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York MOUNTAIN RUN: Giavasis Sues over Debt Collection Practices MULTIPLAN INC: Liou Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls NEW YORK: Correction Officers Sue for Discrimination NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Settles 401(k) Excessive Fees Suit for $12MM NOVO NORDISK: Class Certified in Central States Securities Suit PATTERN ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action PINGER INC: Bid for Class Certification in Regan Suit Denied PIZZA HUT: Faces Kennedy Suit Over Unsolicited Automated Text Ads PLI CHICAGO: Means Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard Smith Notes of March 16 Deadline PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action PROGRESSIVE GARDEN: Ferrara Files Suit for Breach of Contract QUDIAN INC: Holzer & Holzer Alerts Investors to Class Action QUDIAN INC: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action REALTYSHARES INC: Shapiro Haber Files Class Action RESORT SALES: Cardenas Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls RIVIERA HOTEL CORP: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey SAMORMA INC: Burris Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Mendoza Moves for FLSA Class Certification SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Papadimitropoulos Suit Held in Abeyance SUBARU OF AMERICA: Armstrong Windshield Row Transferred to N.J. SULLIVAN BUICK-CADILLAC-GMC: Sued by Hussain for Violating TCPA SYSCO CORP: Class Cert. Bid Denied as to Meal & Rest Break Claims TARGET CORP: Monroe Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. TETHER LTD: Does Not Oppose Merger of 3 Class Action Lawsuits TRANSAMERICA CORP: Karg Seeks to Certify Plan Participants Class TROPSTAR LLC: Griffin Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA UNITED STATES: Settlement in Quero Suit Gets Final Court Approval VELOX EXPRESS: York Moves to Certify Class of Drivers & Couriers WAWA INC: Faces McGlade Suit in E.D. Pa. for Not Protecting PII WEST VIRGINIA: Baxley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass WILLIAMS‑SONOMA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action WM BOLTHOUSE: May 4 Final Hearing on Felix FCRA Suit Settlement Set XEROX BUSINESS: Court Approves Class Notice Plan in Hill Suit ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Unions Sue Over NDMA-Laced Valsartan and VCDs ********* AARP INC: Gozdenovich Moves for Rule 23(b) Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BRIAN GOZDENOVICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES INC., AARP INSURANCE PLAN, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02788-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Gozdenovich also asks the Court to appoint (i) him as class representative; and (ii) Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., as Class Counsel. The Motion Return Date is set for April 6, 2020.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS) ADMS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 8, 2017 - September 30, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 10, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=5292&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) health insurers were excluding Adamas's primary product, GOCOVRI, from their prescription formularies or requiring patients to use "step therapy" - i.e., making patients try immediate-release amantadine prior to covering GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians prescribing GOCOVRI during the Class Period was not due to its efficacy; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements about Adamas's business, operations, and prospects 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] ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 10 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5298&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 10, 2020 Class Period: August 8, 2017 to September 30, 2019 Allegations against ADMS include that: (1) health insurers were excluding Adamas's primary product, GOCOVRI, from their prescription formularies or requiring patients to use "step therapy" - i.e., making patients try immediate-release amantadine prior to covering GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians prescribing GOCOVRI during the Class Period was not due to its efficacy; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements about Adamas's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] AECOM: Sanders FCRA Suit Challenges Use of Consumer Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Sanders, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. AECOM, a California Corporation; HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., an Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-582600 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act relating to the use of consumer reports. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees. The Defendants also use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated current, former and prospective employees, seeks statutory damages due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of California. The Defendants are a California and Indiana Corporation and do business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com ALLMERICA FINANCIAL: Faces Cohen Suit Alleging Breach of Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLMERICA FINANCIAL ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00693 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons insured under an Allmerica insurance policy, who suffered a total-loss covered claim and were not paid the full sales tax, title-transfer fees, and registration fees due under their policy. The Plaintiff was insured under an Allmerica private passenger auto ("PPA") policy of insurance. The Defendant issued the Plaintiff an insurance policy for PPA insurance, including comprehensive and collision coverage. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its policy by failing to pay the full sales tax, title transfer fees, and registration fees due under the policy. When he suffered a total loss of his vehicle, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to pay him the full amount to which he was entitled under his automobile insurance policy. He insists this was not an isolated incident; to the contrary, it is a fundamental component of the Defendant's business practices. Simply stated, the Plaintiff points out, the Defendant has systematically underpaid its insureds, including him and the other Class members, who have suffered the total loss of their vehicles, by failing to pay the cost of sales tax, title and tag transfer fees, despite being contractually obligated to pay such costs. He adds that the Defendant refused or failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other Class members the amount necessary to constitute full ACV payment when they suffered total losses of their vehicles, notwithstanding its contractual obligation to pay such costs. The Defendant, thus, breached its contracts with the Plaintiff and the other Class members. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois, domiciled in Cook County. The Defendant is and was a foreign corporation incorporated in Massachusetts and authorized to transact insurance in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Rachel Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: 305-610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com ARQULE INC: Faces Assad Suit over Proposed Merck Merger ------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE ASSAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARQULE, INC.; PATRICK J. ZENNER; TIMOTHY C. BARABE; SUSAN L. KELLEY; RONALD M. LINDSAY; MICHAEL D. LOBERG; WILLIAM G. MESSENGER; RAN NUSSBAUM; PAOLO PUCCI; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and ARGON MERGER SUB; INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02383 (D. Del., Jan. 2, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action stems from the proposed transaction announced on December 9, 2019, pursuant to which ArQule, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Merck & Co., Inc. On December 6, 2019, ArQule's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Argon Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of ArQule's outstanding common stock for $20.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on January 15, 2020. On December 17, 2019, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The lawsuit contends that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBIT; (ii) the assumptions underlying the financial projections and the adjustments made to the financial projections; (iii) projected net income; and (iv) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. ArQule Inc. develops cancer therapeutics based on its proprietary Activated Checkpoint Therapy platform. The Company's platform is designed to produce small molecule compounds that selectively kill cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed. ArQule's products are intended to be effective against multiple types of cancer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ASCENA RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Catoliato et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------- KARLA A. CATOLIATO, and DOLORES CATOLIATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00019 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., Jan. 3, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. is a holding company for a national chain of women's apparel specialty stores. The Company's stores operate nationwide and in the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Tel: (323) 549-9100 Fax: (323) 549-0101 - and – Raphael A. Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104 Tel: (310) 940-2034 Fax: (310) 733-5644 AT&T INC: Kantz Sues in Pennsylvania Alleging Age Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrice Kantz, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00531 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended by the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants undertook a course of action designed to terminate the employment of older workers through a centrally planned workforce reduction in its Technology & Operations ("ATO") business unit that was announced by ATO's President, Jeff McElfresh, on January 4, 2019. The Defendants' January 2019 workforce reduction in ATO was part of its long-term scheme and pattern or practice to replace older employees with younger ones. The scheme was design to, and did, discriminatorily remove older employees from the Defendants' workforce, and then intentionally deceived them into falsely believing that, in exchange for a severance benefit, they had released their right to sue the company for age discrimination, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant knowingly presented to the older workers, who were terminated as part of its January 2019 ATO reeducation, a "General Release and Waiver" that was materially identical to the General Release and Waiver that had already determined to be in violation of the ADEA, the Plaintiff asserts. She insists that the Defendants knew when they offered the terminated older employees severance in exchange for the execution of their "General Release and Waiver" that the release was in violation of the ADEA, that it was not knowing and voluntary as a matter of law, and that, contrary to what the release stated, it was not a release of their right to sue the company for age discrimination under the ADEA. The Plaintiff was notified of her selection for surplus on January 28, 2019, and terminated from employment at age 57 on March 28, 2019. The Plaintiff contends her physical location had no bearing on the performance of her job duties. She argues that the Defendants selected her for surplus and terminated her employment because of her age, and then obtain from her a General Release and Waiver in violation of the ADEA. Plaintiff lived in, and worked for the Defendant out of, Allentown Pennsylvania. The Defendants are Delaware corporations operating and doing business in multiple places in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen G. Console, Esq. Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq. Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Esq. Daniel S. Orlow, Esq. CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW 1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 545-7676 Fax: (215) 545-8211 Email: console@consolelaw.com mattiacci@consolelaw.com santanto@consolelaw.com orlow@consolelaw.com ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Deceptive Labeling Suit Deal Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- CPT Group, Inc., announced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri has preliminarily approved a proposed nationwide settlement in Smith, et al. v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04004-MDH, a class action alleging that Atkins Nutritionals' representations in its labeling, marketing, advertising, and sales of its products that contained any sugar alcohol (including but not limited to maltitol) or polyol (including but not limited to glycerin) were unfair, deceptive, and/or unlawful because, according to the plaintiffs, Atkins Nutritionals' statement that sugar alcohols have a minimal impact on blood sugar is not accurate. While agreeing to the settlement, Atkins Nutritionals disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and denies liability to the plaintiffs and the settlement class. No court has found that Atkins Nutritionals violated the law in any way. The settlement agreement includes agreements by Atkins Nutritionals to relabel products containing sugar alcohols or polyols, reformulate certain products to reduce or eliminate maltitol, discontinue certain products, and keep these changes in place for set, minimum periods of time. The settlement agreement also establishes a $3.8 million settlement fund to pay claims by settlement class members, administration costs of the settlement, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards to the named plaintiffs. If you purchased Atkins products that contained any sugar alcohol (including but not limited to maltitol) or polyol during the "Purchase Period," you are part of the settlement class (a "Class Member"). The Purchase Period is from January 1, 2013 to April 27, 2020 for purchases in New York, Missouri and/or California, and from January 1, 2014 to April 27, 2020 for purchases in any other state. Under the settlement agreement, Class Members are entitled to a cash payment from the settlement fund for their purchases of any of the following Atkins products during the Purchase Period: Chocolate Covered Candies, Chocolate Peanut Candies, Milk Chocolate Caramel Squares, Peanut Butter Cups, and Chocolate Caramel Mousse bars (the "More Than 10 Grams Of Maltitol Products"). Class Members who timely submit a valid claim form with qualifying proof of purchase of the More Than 10 Grams of Maltitol Products during the applicable Purchase Period will receive an amount equal to 25% of the average national purchase price for each More Than 10 Grams Of Maltitol Product evidenced by the proof of purchase. Class Members who timely submit a valid claim form without qualifying proof of purchase will receive an amount equal to 10% of the average national purchase price for each More Than 10 Grams of Maltitol Product purchased during the applicable Purchase Period, with total recovery capped at $100. To recover a cash payment, Class Members must submit a Claim Form by April 27, 2020. Claim Forms can be found at www.ANIClassSettlement.com or can be requested by calling 1-888-531-0208. If you are a Class Member and want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Atkins Nutritionals on your own about the issues to be resolved by the proposed settlement, you must submit a written Request for Exclusion. If you submit a Request for Exclusion, you will not get any settlement payment that you may have been eligible to receive, and you cannot object to the settlement. Any Request for Exclusion will need to include your name, address, telephone number and signature and be mailed, postmarked no later than April 27, 2020, to Smith, et al. v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. c/o CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606. If you are a Class Member, you also can object to the settlement. An objection must be submitted to the Court by April 27, 2020. Class members who exclude themselves from the settlement cannot also object. To obtain a copy of the settlement agreement or learn more about the proposed settlement, please visit www.ANIClassSettlement.com or contact the settlement administrator at 1-888-531-0208. Contact: CPT Group, Inc. Smith, et al. v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. Settlement Administrator 50 Corporate Park Irvine, Calif. 92606 1-888-531-0208 [GN] AURORA CANNABIS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-aurora-cannabis-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html) announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent purchasers of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:ACB) securities during the period between October 23, 2018 and January 6, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of New Jersey and is captioned Warren v. Aurora Cannabis Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-00555. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Aurora securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Aurora class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Aurora class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Aurora class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Aurora class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Aurora class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from November 21, 2019. If you wish to discuss the Aurora class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-aurora-cannabis-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html. The Aurora class action lawsuit charges Aurora and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aurora markets and sells cannabis, hemp, cannabis devices, and related products in the cannabis consumer and medical markets. Aurora shares began trading on the NYSE on October 23, 2018. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that they had materially overstated the demand and potential market for Aurora's consumer cannabis products; that Aurora's ability to sell products had been materially impaired by extraordinary market oversupply, including oversupply that was the product of Aurora's own aggressive ramp in production capacity; that Aurora's spending growth and capital commitments were slated to exceed its revenue growth; that, as a result, Aurora faced heightened liquidity concerns and the need to significantly curtail capital expenditures, including the cessation of development of the Company's Aurora Sun and Aurora Nordic 2 facilities; that Aurora had violated German law mandating that companies receive special permission to distribute medical products exposed to regulated irradiation techniques, threatening its primary European market access; and that all of the foregoing had negatively impacted the Company's business, operations, and prospects and impaired the Company's ability to achieve profitability. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the Company's securities traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $10 per share. On November 14, 2019, the Company announced disappointing results for the first quarter of fiscal 2020, reporting a 25% sequential sales decline and a 33% sequential consumer cannabis revenue decline. In addition, the Company announced that it was halting construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 facility in Denmark and was deferring final construction on its Aurora Sun facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta. On this news, the Company's stock price fell more than 17%. On November 29, 2019, Marijuana Business Daily reported that German pharmacies were recently asked to stop the sale of Aurora's cannabis products by German health authorities due to a method that Aurora used to protect the shelf life of the flower, which was later reported to involve irradiation techniques. Following these revelations, the price of Aurora common stock declined approximately 7%. And on December 21, 2019, Aurora issued a press release announcing that the Company's Chief Corporate Officer would be stepping down. On this news, the price of Aurora common stock fell more than 10%. Then, on January 6, 2020, media reports stated that the Company had listed its nine-hectare greenhouse in Exeter, Ontario, for sale for $17 million. Analysts immediately noted that the move implied significant write-downs could be on the horizon. Following these revelations, the price of Aurora common stock declined again, falling nearly 10% to close at $1.83 per share on January 7, 2020. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. 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. [GN] BB INSURANCE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Hours, Hammer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Hammer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BB INSURANCE MARKETING, INC., a Florida Corporation, and JASON BROWN, individually, Case No. 0:20-cv-60204-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff says she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants. However, the Defendants have failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Customer Service Representative, a/k/a Customer Support Team Member. The Defendants owned and operated a business specializing in commercial and personal insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com BECKER ELECTRONICS: Jadan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Jadan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Becker Electronics, Inc., Joseph Lattanza, Sharon Becker, David Sosnow and Lukas Sosnow, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00129 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are engaged in the manufacture of electronics products where Plaintiff provided manual labor for Defendant. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Becker, Jadan regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B Hauppauge, NY11788 Tel. (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Jimenez Suit with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry F. Moorer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, dismissed with prejudice the case, PEDRO ISAAC JIMENEZ, JR., Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-354-TFM-MU-C (S.D. Ala.). Pending before the Court was the parties' Rule 41(a) Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice, filed Jan. 15, 2020. The joint stipulation is signed by both sides and the Plaintiff reserves his remaining rights that he may have under the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Consequently, by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the action has been dismissed in accordance with the joint notice. Therefore, the claims in the case are dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/29pf9x from Leagle.com. Pedro Isaac Jimenez, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gabriel Hawa, Downs Law Group PA, pro hac vice & Nathan Lee Nelson, The Downs Law Group. BP Exploration & Production Inc & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Amber Nicole Hall -- ahall@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC, Harlan I. Prater, IV -- hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin & White & Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin & White. CANADA: Class Action Launched Over Trailing Commissions to Brokers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Advisor's Edge reports that Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a class-action lawsuit concerning the payment of trailing commissions to Canadian discount brokerages, the Toronto-based law firm announced January 17. Trailer fees are paid to brokers by mutual fund companies from fees charged to investors who buy mutual funds. Several Canadian financial services firm face similar proposed class actions in connection with the practice. The Canadian Securities Administrators is moving to ban the payment of trailers to discount brokers, with rule changes to be published later this year. Trailing commissions are designed to compensate brokers for advice and services provided to investment clients. "Because discount brokerages cannot and do not provide advice or services to investors," the Koskie Minsky class action alleges "that these commissions are inappropriate and unlawful and that these funds should be returned to investors." "Improper investment commissions whittle away the retirement savings of ordinary Canadians. The practice of collecting trailing commissions for no reason must stop," said Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky, in a statement. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Smith Moves for Certification of Rule 23(b) Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DARNELL SMITH, DARREN NATHAN, GREGORY DAVIS, MARK NEVILLES, ARACELI FONTANEZ, as Parent and Next Friend of HECTOR FONTANEZ, a minor, MARCELL DAVIS, ANTHONY POLK, CALVIN JACKSON, CARL N. MCCORD, TIMOTHY THIGPEN, MELVIN THOMPSON, REBECCA SANDERS, as Parent and Next Friend of STEVE MCABEE, a minor, HERBERT DYER, JR., SHANTAY JOHNSON, ARTHUR MOTON, EDGAR MARSHALL, JR., MICHAEL SANDERS, RASHAWN LINDSEY, and SIDNEY BELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03467 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs filed with the Court their motion for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification and renewed motion for Rule 23(b)(3) class certification. The Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order granting certification of one or more classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs propose these: A. Rule 23(b)(2) class definitions: * Fourth Amendment Class: All persons who, since April 20, 2013, have been, or in the future will be, subjected to an investigatory stop by the Chicago Police Department which resulted in the creation of a Contact Information Card or Investigatory Stop Report; * Fourteenth Amendment Subclass: All African Americans and Hispanics who, since April 20, 2013, have been, or in the future will be, subjected to an investigatory stop by the Chicago Police Department which resulted in the creation of a Contact Information Card or Investigatory Stop Report; and * Fourth Amendment Loitering Subclass: All persons who, since April 20, 2013, have been, or in the future will be, encountered by the Chicago Police Department, resulting in the creation of a Contact Information Card or Investigatory Stop Report and where the listed contact type was "GANGLTR," defined by the CPD as "Gang and Narcotics-Related Loitering"; and B. Rule 23(b)(3) Class definition: All persons who, since April 20, 2013, have been, or in the future will be, encountered by the Chicago Police Department, resulting in the creation of a Contact Information Card or Investigatory Stop Report where the contact type is designated as "GANGLTR" or "Gang and Narcotics-Related Loitering." Stop and frisk, as a practice, has been a controversial issue in recent years in large metropolitan areas throughout the country including New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and of course, Chicago, the Plaintiffs say. They assert that when the objective of an officer is to perform stops and frisks, unconstitutional policing follows. The Plaintiffs note that New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Cleveland, and Milwaukee all confronted the stop and frisk problem and, whether through civil judgments or consent decrees, have a binding, court-supervised process in place to address, among other things, unconstitutional stops. They contend that Chicago, on the other hand, has not meaningfully confronted its stop and frisk problem and for the last four years has resisted every opportunity for court intervention.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Brian Eldridge, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. John (Jack) B. Prior, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 22 W. Washington Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com kpozan@hmelegal.com jprior@hmelegal.com - and - Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Martin D. Gould, Esq. Nicolette A. Ward, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458-1000 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net mgould@rblaw.net nward@rblaw.net - and - Robert S. Peck, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 777 6th Street NW, Suite 520 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 944-2874 E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com - and - Rodney G. Gregory, Esq. THE GREGORY LAW FIRM 3127 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 3 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 398-0012 E-mail: rod@gregorylawfirm.net CITI TRENDS INC: Smith Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Smith, on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Citi Trends, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20STCV00807, (Cal. Super., March 8, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Joseph Smith worked for Citi Trends as a sales associate from approximately November 2016 to December 2018.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com Scott.1eviant@moonyanglaw.com lilit@moonyanglaw.com COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Files Class Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colourpop Cosmetics LLC. The case is styled as Anita Jairam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colourpop Cosmetics LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-mc-00005-SMB (D. Ariz., Feb. 3, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. ColourPop Cosmetics, also known as ColourPop, is a cosmetics brand based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J Hiraldo, Esq. IJH Law 1200 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 496-4469 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com COMODO GROUP: Johnson's Bid for Class Certification Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMODO GROUP, INC. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04469-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Susan D. Wigenton ruled that: -- the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied-in-part, Defendant's Motion to Exclude is denied, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted; -- the Court shall reserve decision with respect to the constitutional issues raised in the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; -- the Defendant shall notify the Court when the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in Barr v. Political Consultants, No. 19-631; -- the parties shall continue to prosecute this matter; and -- the parties shall have 10 days from the date of this order to file any motions to seal the Court's Opinion dated January 31, 2020.[CC] CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Suit Certified as Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TIARA TURNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. CONCENTRIX SERVICES, INC. and CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01072-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order on Feb. 3, 2020: 1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. approving proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit form, once edited to comply with this order; 3. approving proposed Consent to Join Collective Action form; 4. approving sending the notice packet and one follow-up notice, once edited to comply with this order, to potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and email; 5. approving the utilization of www.rightsignature.com as a means for potential opt-in plaintiffs to sign the consent documents and for the sending of a follow-up email; 6. directing the Defendants to produce the following contact information of any individual who meets the collective definition: (1) name, including any aliases he or she may have gone by or goes by now; (2) the last known mailing address; (3) all email addresses of which Defendants are aware, whether personal or company-sponsored. The list must be produced in a manipulative electronic format. Defendants shall deliver this information to Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days of the entry of this order, with the understanding that Plaintiff's counsel is to treat this information as confidential and is not to disclose it to third parties; and 7. giving the Plaintiff 90 days from the date Defendant delivers the requisite contact information in which to distribute the notice and consent documents and to file signed consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs with the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating that she is similarly situated with putative members. Throughout the pleadings and her declaration, Plaintiff has established that she and all other potential opt-in plaintiffs were at-home customer service representatives who were all subject to the same alleged decision, policy, or plan of Defendants. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's proposed class should be conditionally certified for the purpose of giving notice. The Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 30, 2019 seeking relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.[CC] CORNELL PACE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Catillo et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- FELIX CASTILLO; GUSTAVO CERVANTES; JOSE COLLAZO; ANTHONY FORBES; EVERTON HARRIS; ALONZO HERRERA; MICHAEL KERR, and EZEKIEL MAYERS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORNELL PACE INC.; MHPA 2A MAINTENANCE LLC; MOUNT HOPE MANAGEMENT INC.; MOUNT HOPE HOUSING COMPANY INC.; MOUNT HOPE PRESERVATION APARTMENTS 2A LLC; PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT INC.; THE MOUNT HOPE HOUSING COMPANY INC.; FRITZ JEAN; GLENROY FRAY; JAMAL ALLAH; CORNELL PACE; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; AND JOHN DOE 5; and JOHN DOE 6, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00060 (S.D.N.Y., Case no. 1:20-cv-00060) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees. Cornell Pace Inc. manages affordable housing, apartment management, apartments, tax credit, and commercial and industrial communities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW LLC 216 Lakeville Road Great Neck, NY 11020 Tel: (516) 437-3400 CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Misuses Ohioans' Financial Data, Hopper Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tara S. Hopper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Associates, LLC, and TransUnion, Case No. 2:20-cv-00522-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 30, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by misusing the private financial data of Ohioans. The Defendant Credit Associates has unlawfully obtained and misused the private financial data of thousands of financially distressed Ohioans, the Plaintiff alleges. In particular, she asserts, Credit Associates has violated, and continues to violate the FCRA, by obtaining Ohioans' private credit data without a statutorily permitted purpose. Credit Associates has misused the illegally obtained data to solicit debt relief business from the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated Ohioans, according to the complaint. Defendant TransUnion has likewise violated the FCRA by improperly providing the private financial data to Credit Associates for impermissible direct-mail marketing purposes. Plaintiff Tara Hopper is a domiciliary of Ashville, Pickaway County, Ohio. Credit Associates generates marketing leads for other debt relief businesses and law firms, including at least one such firm in Ohio. TransUnion is a "consumer reporting agency" in the business of supplying consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lewis, Esq. KITRICK, LEWIS, & HARRIS, CO. LPA 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Ste. 100 Community Corporate Center Columbus, OH 43235-8630 Phone: (614) 224-7711 Fax: (614) 225-8985 Email: mlewis@klhlaw.com - and - Jeremiah E. Heck, Esq. LUFTMAN, HECK & ASSOCIATES, LLP 580 East Rich Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-1500 Fax: (614) 224-2894 Email: jheck@lawLH.com - and - Brian M. Garvine, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN M. GARVINE, LLC 5 East Long Street, Suite 1100 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone (614) 223-0290 Fax (614) 221-3201 Email: brian@garvinelaw.com - and - Robert J. Wagoner, Esq. ROBERT J. WAGNER, CO., L.L.C. OF COUNSEL TO KITRICK, LEWIS & HARRIS CO., L.P.A. 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43235 Phone (614) 796-4110 Fax (614) 796-4111 Email: Bob@wagonerlawoffice.com D & M: Blumenthal Files Class Suit Over Driver Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Riverside labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against D & M Carriers, LLC alleging that the company failed to properly classify their truck drivers as employees. The D & M Carriers, LLC lawsuit, Case No. CIVDS1935995, is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California. A copy of the complaint can be accessed by clicking here. According to the class action complaint's allegations, the company's truck drivers were allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks due to their rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted meal break when employees are required to work ten (10) hours. The complaint alleges that the company did not provide their employees who forfeited meal breaks additional compensation under the law. The class action complaint also alleges DEFENDANT as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify the PLAINTIFFS and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN] DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Seeks to Notify Class of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff filed with the Court his agreed motion for order directing notice to the class. The class action lawsuit has been brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case involves an employer, the Defendant, DarkTrace, Inc., that uses background checks (formally, "consumer reports" under the FCRA) to evaluate potential employees for employment with the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FCRA by improperly including a release of future liability in the form document it required employment applicants to sign authorizing a background check. He also asserted that DarkTrace violated the FCRA by using a consumer report to make an adverse employment decision without providing the person, who was the subject of the report, a copy of the report and a summary of their rights under the FCRA a sufficient amount of time before the adverse action was taken. The parties to the action have successfully negotiated a class-wide settlement for the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons. By this Motion, the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order: (1) finding that it will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and certify the proposed Settlement Classes for purposes of judgment on the Settlement; (2) approving the form, content, and method of delivering notice to the Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement; and (3) scheduling a final approval hearing. The parties have stipulated to certification of a Settlement Class (the "Class"), pursuant to Rule 23 for settlement purposes, consisting of: "All applicants for employment with and employees of DarkTrace from whom DarkTrace obtained the individual's consent to procure a consumer report using a form document substantially similar to the authorization form signed by Plaintiff, and procured or caused to be procured a consumer report, as defined by the FCRA, between November 5, 2016 and the date the Final Judgment and Order approving this Settlement Agreement is entered by the Court." Subject to Court approval, the Plaintiff will be the Class Representative, and his attorneys, Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., and SmithMarco, P.C., will be Class Counsel. The Defendant has agreed to comply with the disclosure, authorization, and notice practices relating to obtaining consumer reports and the provision of consumer reports and summaries of rights referenced in Sections 1681b(b)(2) and 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA, including utilizing an FCRA compliant disclosure and authorization form when appropriate. The Defendant will pay Class Members $300, will pay an individual settlement and service award of $15,000 to the Class Representative, and will pay up to $150,000 for the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel. The parties have retained the services of Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC ("KCC"), a professional third-party class action settlement administrator. KCC will administer the class notice and the Settlement Payment. In addition to the monetary relief to the Class, separate and apart from the Settlement Payment, the Defendant will pay the costs of notice and settlement administration and the costs associated with complying with the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), including the items required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b) to be sent to the appropriate officials, as required by the CAFA. Within thirty days of the Court's Order Directing Notice to the Class, the Settlement Administrator will provide notice to the Class by sending the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing (the "Notice") by first class mail to the Class Member at the last known address available from the records of the Defendants. Any member of the Class may request to be excluded from the Agreement and the settlement by opting out of the Class within sixty days from the date of the Notice, and any member of the Class may file an objection to the settlement within the same time frame. Any member who timely opts out of the Class shall not be bound by any prior Court order or the terms of the Agreement and shall not be entitled to any of the monetary benefits set forth in the Agreement. In consideration of the relief provided by the settlement, as detailed in the Agreement, the Class will release all claims that arise out of or relate to the facts alleged or which could have been alleged or asserted in the action under the FCRA. The release does not apply to non-FCRA related claims.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C. 1600 Market Street Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744 1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 Email: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Michele B. Miller, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 262-8301 Facsimile: (415) 671-6589 E-mail: mbmiller@cozen.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lewis Moves to Certify 2 Arrestees Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, et al. v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00352-RBW (D.D.C.), move the Court pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enter an order certifying these classes: A. Claim 1--The Illegal Hold Class: Ms. Lewis bring this claim under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class consisting of each person who: (1) in the period beginning three years before the date of filing of the original complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (2) was arrested in a warrantless arrest; (3) and at the initial appearance in Superior Court was ordered held in a case [prosecuted by the prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia]; (4) for a Gerstein perfection hold[; and was held in District of Columbia custody for more than 24 hours from time of arrest]; and B. Claim 3--The Illegal Strip Search Class: Ms. Lewis and Mr. Hill bring this claim under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class consisting of each person who: (1) in the period beginning three years before the date of filing of the original complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (2) was arrested in a warrantless arrest; (3) and at the initial appearance in Superior Court was ordered held; (4) for a Gerstein perfection hold; and (5) was then admitted to the DC Jail or CTF and subjected to a strip search. Kayla Dionne Lewis and Felton Levan Hill, Jr., also ask the Court to appoint them as Named plaintiffs, and to appoint William Claiborne, Esq., and Michael Bruckheim, Esq., as class counsel. According to the Motion, each of the Named Plaintiffs and each of the other class members in the Strip-search Class was presented in Superior Court for First Appearance in a warrantless arrest on minor charges (e.g., Traffic offenses, or a U.S. charge such as "shoplifting") pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Claiborne, Esq. CLAIBORNELAW 717 D Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004-2815 Telephone: (202) 824-0700 E-mail claibornelaw@gmail.com - and - Michael Bruckheim, Esq. BRUCKHEIM & PATEL, LLC 401 E Jefferson St., #201b Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 753-8222 Facsimile: (240) 556-0300 E-mail: michael@brucklaw.com mpbruckesq@aol.com EL MARINERO RESTAURANT: Denied Justo Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Margarito Domingo Justo, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. El Marinero Restaurant Inc., El Marinero Ecuadorian Restaurant, Livia Torres and Washington Carrion, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00172, (S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as "El Marinero Ecuadorian Restaurant" located at 156 South Broadway, Yonkers, New York where Justo worked as a dishwasher, general helper, kitchen preparation assistant, cleaner and cook. He generally works over 40 hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel. (212) 209-3933 Fax. (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com EXELON CORP: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 14 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important approaching deadline regarding a class action lawsuit against EXELON CORPORATION (EXC) for violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced time periods and want to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or financial obligation to you. EXELON CORPORATION (EXC) Shares purchased between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019 Deadline: February 14, 2020 According to the complaint,throughout the Class Period, the 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) as a result, Exelon's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Additional information can be found at http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/exelon-corporation-nasdaq-exc/, or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. [GN] EXELON CORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:EXC) for violations of 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 February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 14, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Exelon and its employees engaged in improper lobbying of government officials. These actions increased the likelihood of a criminal investigation of the Company. Exelon subsidiary Commonwealth Edison gained revenues as a result of the improper conduct which would be unsustainable in the future. 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 Exelon, 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 Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] FACEBOOK INC: App. Developers Sue for Illegal Monopolistic Behavior ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Cohen, writing for Adweek, reports that four app developers filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook late January 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to put a stop to "the most brazen, willful anticompetitive scheme in a generation." Law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht represents the plaintiffs, who allege in the lawsuit that the more data Facebook collected on its users, the more attractive its social network became to those users, creating what it called a "social data barrier to entry," or SDBE. They blamed that SDBE for the demise of Google+ despite Google's "massive resources and user base," thus setting up what the lawsuit claims is illegal monopolistic behavior. Facebook dismissed the validity of the suit, with a spokesperson saying in a statement, "We operate in a competitive environment where people and advertisers have many choices. In the current environment, where plaintiffs' attorneys see financial opportunities, claims like this aren't unexpected, but they are without merit." Pierce Bainbridge attorney Brian Dunne, Esq. -- bdunne@piercebainbridge.com -- co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an email, "To cover for the incompetence of its leadership, Facebook wooed developers and then either killed their apps or forcibly took their data." Dunne added that the named plaintiffs--Reveal Chat, which has a dating app called LikeBright; Lenddo, a credit scoring and identity verification service; Cir.cl, a dissolved peer-to-peer marketplace; and Beehive, a dissolved identity verification service--"have been bullied by a company that wanted to cover up its own shortcomings." According to the lawsuit, the emergence of smartphones led to apps designed specifically for those devices, with functionality that overlapped with features offered by Facebook such as messaging, photo sharing, dating, check-ins and payments. By 2011, Facebook's failure to create its own mobile app threatened its dominance, and its initial effort on that front "was buggy and slow, garnering one-star ratings in the Apple App Store and crashing more often than it worked." With Facebook's May 2012 initial public offering approaching, the plaintiffs allege that Facebook executives realized that while its developer platform enabled third-party developers to build social apps that drove engagement on Facebook and created revenue for the company, the platform was also giving those developers access to Facebook's network of users, which those developers were engaging more creatively. "With its market dominance in imminent danger, Facebook moved to extinguish the mobile threat, to obtain a sustaining foothold in the social data and social advertising markets and to prevent any newcomers from building rival social networks," according to the lawsuit. "To do so, [CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and Facebook's most senior executives hatched an anticompetitive scheme of unprecedented scale." In the first part of the scheme, the plaintiffs alleged that Facebook identified potential competitors and cut off their access to key app-programming interfaces that provided them with the social data they relied on for growth--this despite executives and engineers within the company expressing their opinions that the moves "lacked any legitimate or technical justification." The process started April 30, 2014, with the introduction of Facebook Login and Graph API 2.0, and the company did its best to conceal the news, saying in its blog post at the time, "We are removing several rarely used API endpoints," when those endpoints were in fact used by tens of thousands of third-party apps, according to the suit. The plaintiffs noted that the changelog referred to in the blog post is no longer online, and that the removal of access to the APIs was not mentioned during Zuckerberg's keynote or during any of the 20 sessions at the social network's F8 developer conference. The next step was to enter into whitelist and data-sharing agreements with direct competitors such as Pinterest and Foursquare, as well as with apps that generated large amounts of user data through engagement, such as Tinder, cutting off those competitors' access to Facebook's core platform APIs if they did not share their social data. The plaintiffs allege that Facebook then went after direct competitors that did not rely on its social data and user base by revoking their ability to use its platform and banning them from buying its social data via advertising. WeChat and Line were cited as examples. Finally, the suit contends that Facebook used mobile surveillance technology from Onavo, a company it acquired in October 2013, to determine the severity of the threats posed by Instagram and WhatsApp before "moving forcibly to acquire both companies," in September 2012 and February 2014, respectively. Pierce Bainbridge partner Yavar Bathaee, co-lead counsel to the plaintiffs, said in an email, "Facebook faced an existential threat from mobile apps and, while it could have responded by competing on the merits, it instead chose to use its might to intentionally eliminate its competition. Facebook deliberately leveraged its developer platform, an infrastructure of spyware and surveillance and its economic power, to destroy or acquire anyone that competed with it." The lawsuit comes at a time when tech companies are under scrutiny from lawmakers and governmental agencies. In October, 47 state attorneys general, led by New York's Letitia James, began investigating the social network "to determine whether Facebook's actions stifled competition and put users at risk." This followed July's Congressional hearings where Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon were dragged to Washington, D.C. to face House committees about anticompetitive behavior. "Congress and antitrust enforcers allowed these firms to regulate themselves with little oversight," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the antitrust committee's chairman, during his opening remarks. "As a result, the internet has become increasingly concentrated, less open, and growingly hostile to innovation and entrepreneurship." January 16's class-action lawsuit describes Facebook's plan to integrate the messaging infrastructure of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp as "deliberately intended to avoid regulatory divestiture of assets, to consolidate the geographic regions it controls through its various apps and to finally flex the market power it acquired through those mergers." The lawsuit emerged after NBC News published a trove of internal Facebook documents that, according to the lawsuit, "laid bare the truth about defendants' scheme." [GN] FARMERS GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Grigson Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 on Jan. 30, 2020 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. On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order granting preliminarily approval of class action settlement and direction of notice under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(e). In light of the preliminary approval of the class-action settlement in this cause the Court dismissed the motions. Farmers Group operates as an insurance management and holding company. The company manages an auto and home insurer, and a property and casualty insurance group. Farmers is also a commercial insurer and operates a life insurance subsidiary.[CC] FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed w/out Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Lee Yeakel dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.). On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order Granting Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement and Direction of Notice Under Rule 23(e). In light of the preliminary approval of the class-action settlement in the case, Judge Yeakel dismissed without prejudice the 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.[CC] FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Pre-Certification Discovery Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order amending Pre-Certification Discovery Schedule in the case captioned TRAVIS CHAPMAN and JOHN CHURCHWELL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:19-cv-00410-TLN-DMC. (E.D. Cal.) In its May 21, 2019 Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court established a discovery deadline for all discovery, specifically regarding facts relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action, to be completed by February 20, 2020, with an expert disclosure deadline for class certification of April 16, 2020, and a class certification hearing date of August 6, 2020. Based on the class certification discovery deadline of February 20, 2020, the Parties had originally agreed that disclosure of declaration of witnesses in support of or in opposing to any motion for class certification should occur on or prior to December 19, 2019. The Parties exchanged initial disclosures and initial written discovery requests. Subsequently, the Parties agree that the current class certification briefing schedule (which calls for the filing of Plaintiffs' motion on June 12, 2020 and a hearing on August 6, 2020) need not be changed at this time, but the parties' agreed-upon December 19, 2019 witness disclosure deadline no longer should hold, and the class certification discovery deadline and related deadlines should be continued. The Parties accordingly stipulate and agree that the Court should order an amended schedule as follows: (1) the fact discovery deadline (re class certification) should be continued from February 20, 2020 to April 30, 2020, with exchanges of lists of declaration witnesses re class certification by March 13, 2020 (and with the parties agreeing to work cooperatively to schedule any necessary depositions prior to April 30, 2020 and to seek relief from the Court if some depositions cannot be scheduled until after April 30); and (2) expert disclosure deadline (re class certification) should be continued from April 16, 2020 to May 22, 2020 (with depositions allowed to proceed during the course of class certification briefing as necessary). The Court approved the Parties' Stipulation on Pre-Certification Discovery Schedule. A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/u44bn6w from Leagle.com Travis Chapman & John Churchwell, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel V. Santiago , Law Offices of Daniel V. Santiago, P.C. 11622 El Camino Real, 1st Floor, San Diego, CA 92130 FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Doing business as FedEx Home Delivery, Defendant, represented by Brandy Thompson Cody - bcody@laborlawyers.com - Fisher & Phillips, Christopher M. Ahearn - cahearn@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips LLP, Natalie B. Fujikawa - nfujikawa@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Sean F. Daley - sdaley@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips LLP & Hassan Aburish - haburish@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips, LLP. FEDEX GROUND: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bachanov Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW BACHANOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00025 (D. Colo., Jan. 5, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff Bachanov was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and business addresses throughout North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustin T. Lujan, Esq. LUJAN LAW OFFICE 1603 Capitol Avenue Suite 310, A559 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (970) 999-4225 E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com - and - Brian Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE: Lalli Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------------------- Paramjit Lalli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Team Real Estate - Orange County and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00027, (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. First Team is a real estate brokerage that services consumers in buying and selling homes throughout California. It utilizes unsolicited autodialed text messages to market itself to prospective customers of its website.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Forescout Technologies, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5298&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020 Class Period: February 7, 2019 to October 9, 2019 Allegations against FSCT include 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. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Remanded to Raleigh County Circuit Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT RUTLEDGE and CAROL BARCLAY, Plaintiffs, v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00217 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Frank W. Volk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and (ii) denied the Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Defendant's Motion to Amend Notice of Removal. On Aug. 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County against Frontline, alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"). The complaint contained a clause limiting the damages of each Plaintiff to $75,000. On March 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs submitted to the counsel for Frontline an offer to compromise, demanding $1,985,430, which far exceeds $75,000. On March 25, 2019, Frontline removed the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Then, on April 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to remand. The Plaintiffs contend that removal was improper for two reasons. First, they assert that the jurisdictional amount is not met inasmuch as the claims of the putative class plaintiffs cannot be aggregated because the claims do not arise from a common and undivided interest. And, without aggregation, no individual claim exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Second, the Plaintiffs contend that Frontline should not be permitted to amend its notice of removal to reframe its jurisdictional allegations. Frontline, in turn, moves to amend its notice of removal to include CAFA allegations. It contends the oversight was a mere technical error correctable now. The proposed amendment adds several references to CAFA amounting to nearly a full page of additional allegations. Notably, at the point where the notice of removal exclusively referenced the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement of Section 1332(a), the proposed amendment includes extensive allegations reciting the $5 million amount in controversy requirements of CAFA. Judge Volk finds that the Plaintiffs' claims do not give rise to the non-aggregation exception. They each assert an individual right to relief based on Frontline's putative violations of the WVCCPA. Each alleged violation arises out of a specific act by Frontline against a specific putative class plaintiff on different occasions. As the claims cannot be aggregated, at least one Plaintiff's claims must exceed the $75,000 threshold. Frontline has not demonstrated as much by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, Judge Volk concludes that the District Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 1332(a). Next, Judge Volk finds that Frontline's proposed amendments referring to CAFA supply entirely new allegations of an entirely different jurisdictional genre. The original notice of removal makes no reference to CAFA or its requirements. Indeed, the original notice addresses only the requirements of Section 1332(a). Frontline thus seeks to allege a new basis for jurisdiction that was absent from its original notice. The proposed amendment is improper, and remand is warranted, the District Court opines. Accordingly, Judge Volk denied the Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Defendant's Motion to Amend Notice of Removal, and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/OaSblG from Leagle.com. Robert Rutledge & Carol Barclay, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan R. Marshall -- JMARSHALL@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis -- PKIPNIS@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER, Ruperto Yongque Dumapit, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, Steven R. Broadwater, Jr. -- sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com -- HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD & Victor S. Woods -- VWOODS@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jill D. Helbling -- jhelbling@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES & Sean Patrick Flynn -- sflynn@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, pro hac vice. GAIA HERBS INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gaia Herbs, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gaia Herbs, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00605 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gaia Herbs, Inc. is a manufacturers and seller of medicinal herbal products. The Company offers single herbs, liquid herbal extracts, herbal teas, gaia organics and kids liquid extracts, oils, salves, and tonics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com GENERAL MOTORS: Objections to Final Order in Teachers Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON, NICHOLAS S. CYPRUS, CHRISTOPHER P. LIDDELL, DANIEL AMMANN, CHARLES K. STEVENS, III, MARY T. BARRA, THOMAS S. TIMKO, and GAY P. KENT, Defendants, Civil Case No. 14-11191 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, rejected Donald C. Marro's objections to the Court's final order, entered in May 2016, (i) approving the settlement of the class action securities lawsuit, and (ii) denying his motions. One of Mr. Marro's complaints was that the settlement in the class action complaint was unfair because it did not include GM warrants as eligible securities and that the Plan of Allocation was unfair because it excluded recovery based on shares of GM stock sold before March 10, 2014, the first alleged corrective disclosure in the action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Mr. Marro's claims on appeal on Nov. 27, 2017. Mr. Marro moved for rehearing, which the Sixth Circuit also denied. His petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on Oct. 29, 2018. Once Mr. Marro's appeal was resolved, the claims administrator was at last able to distribute the settlement funds to the Settlement Class Members. On May 2, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff moved for an order to distribute the funds. The Court entered a distribution order on May 21, 2019. Payments were mailed to the Settlement Class Members beginning July 31, 2019. Since that time, Mr. Marro has filed multiple duplicative objections to the order of disbursement and motions for oral argument with respect to his objections. In his filings, Mr. Marro contends that his claim was not paid in full. He does not elaborate on why he believes he was not paid the amount due under the Plan of Allocation. The Lead Plaintiff details in its opposition to Mr. Marro's filings that he, in fact, was paid the correct amount. Judge Parker therefore concludes that Mr. Marro's objections are frivolous. Oral argument is not needed. Accordingly, the District Court denied Mr. Marro's objections and motions. The matter remains closed and Mr. Marro may not file any further motions or objections without prior approval of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/NeezTZ from Leagle.com. New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Individually, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Wierzbowski -- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, James Abram Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm, Rebecca Ellen Boon, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman LLP & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. General Motors Company, Mary T. Barra, Daniel Ammann, Daniel F. Akerson, Nicholas S. Cyprus, Christopher P. Liddell, Thomas S. Timko & Charles K. Stevens, III, Defendants, represented by Raymond W. Henney -- rhenney@honigman.com -- Honigman LLP, Robert J. Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Timothy A. Duffy -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis. Gay P. Kent, Defendant, represented by Guy T. Petrillo -- gpetrillo@pkbllp.com -- Petrillo Klein and Boxer LLP, Jill Caroline Barnhart, Petrillo Klein and Boxer LLP, Joshua Klein, Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP, Michael P. Cooney -- mcooney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Raymond W. Henney, Honigman LLP & Thomas H. Trapnell -- ttrapnell@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC. KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Nancy V. Savageau, Secrest Wardle. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Movant, represented by Adam Wierzbowski, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, James Abram Harrod, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Rebecca Ellen Boon, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman LLP & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Ltd & Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., Movants, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP. Gemel Ltd., Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. Donald C. Marro, Movant, pro se. GERON CORP: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action --------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Geron Corporation ("Geron") (NASDAQ: GERN) common stock during the period between March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:20-cv-00547 The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Geron securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. The complaint alleges that defendants: (1) misled investors about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Geron's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Imetelstat was intended to treat certain cancers that occur in bone marrow, and the IMbark study was designed to ascertain whether imetelstat helped patients with a cancer called myelofibrosis. Geron was developing imetelstat in partnership with Janssen Biotech Inc. ("Janssen"), a division of Johnson & Johnson. On September 27, 2018, Geron issued a press release stating that patients in the IMbark study had shown only a 10% spleen response rate and a 32% symptom response rate. The Company also announced that Janssen had terminated its partnership with Geron for the development of imetelstat. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Geron securities during the Class Period. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Jim Baker, Esq. Johnson Fistel, LLP Tel: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] GLOBAL PROCESSING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Benning Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00052 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Global Processing Systems, Inc. provides credit card processing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important approaching deadline regarding a class action lawsuit against GREEN DOT CORPORATION for violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced time periods and want to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or financial obligation to you. GREEN DOT CORPORATION (GDOT) Shares purchased between May 8, 2018 and November 7, 2019 Deadline: February 18, 2020 According to the complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period made 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Additional information can be found at http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/green-dot-corporation-nyse-gdot/ , or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. [GN] HEALTH QUEST: Patient Files Class Action Over Phishing Attack ------------------------------------------------------------- Mackenzie Garrity, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a patient of Health Quest is suing the Lagrangeville, N.Y.-based health system for allegedly failing to safeguard her protected health information after it was exposed in a phishing attack, according to the Poughkeepsie Journal. Nuvance Health, which acquired Health Quest last year, is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, which was filed Jan. 21. In 2018, Health Quest was the victim of a phishing incident that resulted in several employees disclosing their usernames and passwords to unauthorized third parties. After an investigation, Health Quest began notifying patients in May 2019 of the incident. However, Health Quest mailed additional patients in January 2019, saying that their information may have also been exposed in the 2018 phishing attack. In total, around 28,910 patients may have been affected, reports the Poughkeepsie Journal. Patient data that may have been exposed included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, Medicare claim numbers, driver's license numbers, provider names, dates of treatment, treatment and diagnosis information, health insurance plan member and group numbers, health insurance claims information, financial account information with security codes, and payment care information. "Defendants' security failures enabled the hackers to steal the private information of plaintiff and members of the class…These failures put the plaintiff's and class members' private information and interests at serious, immediate and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses," the lawsuit says, according to the Poughkeepsie Journal. Nuvance Health declined to comment, saying they don't comment on pending litigation. The patient is seeking financial damages. [GN] HILTON HOTELS: White Renews Bid for ERISA Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled VALERIE R. WHITE, et al. v. HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK (D.D.C.), filed with the Court their renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Valerie White, Eva Juneau, and Peter Betancourt as class representatives, and to appoint their as Class counsel. Certification of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate because the members of the proposed class (and each of the proposed subclasses) are numerous and geographically dispersed, making joinder impracticable, the Plaintiffs assert.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 289-1117 E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net acaalim@verizon.net The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Lacy, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 900 G St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 636-5505 E-mail: alacy@stblaw.com - and - Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Shannon K. McGovern, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-3539 E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com smcgovern@stblaw.com HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Barber's Bid to Certify Class Action Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Emily C. Marks denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify the case titled BRENT BARBER v. HOUSTON COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01043-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), as a class action. According to the Order, on January 10, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation in the lawsuit to which no timely objections have been filed. After an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, and for good cause, the Court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class action. With the exception of the Lead Plaintiff, Brent Barber, the remaining named Plaintiffs are terminated as parties to the complaint, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the docket accordingly. Judge Marks also refers the case back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.[CC] HOUSTON COUNTY: Renewed Bid to Certify Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDRE D. FLAGG-EL, Plaintiff v. HOUSTON COUNTY COMMISSION FOR COURTS AND JAIL STANDARDS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00909-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge W. Harold Albritton entered an order on Feb. 3, 2020, denying a renewed motion to certify the case as class action. The Plaintiff initially filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on November 19, 2019. The court denied that request in its January 17, 2020 order. The Plaintiff filed the second motion for class certification -- which was denied pursuant to the February court order -- on December 27, 2019. Houston County is a county located in the central portion of the U.S. State of Georgia.[CC] IQVIA INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CARLOS M. BOILEVE, D.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff v. IQVIA INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00758 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a "Damasco" motion for class certification of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant, (3) from whom Defendant did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendant did not have an established business relationship, and (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiff will file its memorandum in support of the class certification request after discovery pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a Rule 23 discovery schedule to this Court and Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference with the Court as soon as practicable. The Defendants sent the Plaintiff and others a standardized form advertisement. The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours of the class and the advertisements that were sent. Plaintiff requests leave to submit a brief and other evidence in support of this motion after discovery about the class elements has been completed. The Plaintiff submits its Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint" and "the pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to the extent [it] hold[s] that a defendant's offer of full compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III case or controversy" but not commenting on effect of a "placeholder" motion if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot for some other reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding "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").[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847 368-1500 Facsimile: 847 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com JAKARTA PROVINCE: Has Yet to Receive Class Action Lawsuit for Flood ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mahinda Arkyasa, writing for Tempo, reports that Jakarta Provincial Government has stated that they have not received any class action lawsuit related to the floods earlier this year. Head of Legal Bureau of the Jakarta Regional Secretariat Yayan Yuhanah, stated that the Central Jakarta District Court may still be processing the lawsuit by the Jakarta Flood Victims Advocacy Team. "Not yet. I think it will be next week that we receive the lawsuit," said Yayan when met in the Jakarta City Hall, on Friday, January 10, 2020. Yayan has clarified that due to the lawsuit mechanism in court, a lawsuit that is submitted to the court does not go directly to the defendant. "There will be a meeting first, the court will appoint an assembly and a clerk, only then will it [the lawsuit] be processed, then sent to the defendant," Yayan said. According to Yayan, the Jakarta Provincial Government has prepared 21 teams to face any class action lawsuits charged by the people. All members of the government legal team are set to be deployed to face lawsuits in five district courts and one state administration court. "Whichever one is more urgent, then we will distribute," Yayan said. Representative of the Jakarta Flood Victims Advocacy Team, Diarson Lubis has filed a class action lawsuit related to the floods, addressed to the Central Jakarta District Court, Monday, January 13, 2020. The advocacy team represents 243 Jakarta residents who were victims of the floods in early January 2020. [GN] JONES LANG: WDES Seeks Certification of Class, Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled WACKER DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC, on behalf of itself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS (ILLINOIS), LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-05492 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of this class and subclasses: -- Class: All tenants in the class buildings who were subjected to JLL's requirement to hire union contractors exclusively and who incurred moving expenses and/or hired contractors to make improvements/renovations in their tenant space since August 14, 2014; -- First Subclass ("Contracting Subclass"): All tenants in the class buildings, from August 14, 2014 through the present, who were subjected to JLL's requirement to hire union contractors exclusively and who hired union contractors to make improvements/renovations in their tenant space; and -- Second Subclass ("Moving Subclass"): All tenants in the class buildings, from August 14, 2014 through the present, who were subjected to JLL's requirement to hire union movers exclusively and who incurred moving expenses by hiring union movers. WDES also asks the Court to appoint it as Class representative, and to appoint its counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The lawsuit is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") class action brought by WDES, a former tenant at a building located at 125 S. Wacker Drive in the Chicago Loop, to recover damages sustained by tenants of 20 office buildings in the Chicago Loop managed by the Defendant as the result of an illegal conspiracy/agreement between JLL and three labor unions to force tenants into hiring union-only movers and union-only building trades contractors ("contractors"). WDES contends that the cost difference between union and non-union labor in the Chicago Loop is substantial: union contractors cost over 35% more and union movers cost over 20% more that non-union laborers. Because of the illegal agreement, WDES says it was forced to spend thousands of dollars more for union movers and union building trade work to renovate its space. Every tenant in all 20 buildings JLL managed during the class period, who hired movers and contractors had no choice but to pay the inflated premium, WDES asserts. WDES argues that if the case is certified, the tenants will have the opportunity to recoup millions of dollars in damages extracted as a result of JLL's illegal "hot cargo" agreement with the unions.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Anna Ceragioli, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com - and - Howard W. Foster, Esq. Matthew A. Galin, Esq. FOSTER PC 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: hfoster@fosterpc.com mgalin@fosterpc.com - and - Aaron R. Walner, Esq. THE WALNER LAW FIRM LLC 555 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 250 Northbrook, IL 60062 E-mail: awalner@walnerlawfirm.com KANSAS: Lynn Files Civil Rights Suit v. DOC, et al. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hackney et al. The case is styled as Patrick C. Lynn, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. (fnu) Hackney Unit Manager, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (fnu) Bartley Unit Counselor, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Dan Schnurr Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, John Doe Training Officer, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (fnu) Androski Librarian, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Clay Vanhoose Major, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Jordan Bell Unit Manager, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (fnu) Jiles CS1, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (fnu) Barr Deputy Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (fnu) Vieyra Deputy Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Christiana Wise Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Jon Graves Staff Attorney, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Tommy Williams Deputy Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Patricia Keen Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Jeff Zmuda Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections, Doug Burris Kansas Department of Corrections, Jeff Cowger Chief Counsel, Kansas Department of Corrections, Laura Kelly Governor of Kansas, in her individual and official capacity, Kansas, State of official capacity only for injunctive relief, Johnny Stiffin Librarian, Lansing Correctional Facility, in their individual and official capacity, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03048-JTM (D. Kan., Feb. 3, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus for Prisoner Civil Rights. The Kansas Department of Corrections is a cabinet-level agency of Kansas that operates the state's correctional facilities, both juvenile and adult.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. KEURIG GREEN: Dismissal Bid on Smith Suit to be Heard March 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHLEEN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's Administrative Motion to modify the hearing date and briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's class certification motion currently set for hearing on Feb. 13, 2020. The hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint is continued to March 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., the Court ruled. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/sW5PKh from Leagle.com. Kathleen Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Judd Hirsch -- hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group & Ryan Berghoff -- rberghoff@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Creighton R. Magid -- magid.chip@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, Navdeep Kumar Singh -- singh.navdeep@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney LLP & Kent Jeffrey Schmidt -- schmidt.kent@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP. LIBERTY PROPERTY: Garfield Securities Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William P. Hankowsky, Thomas C. Deloach, Jr., Katherine Dietze, Antonio Fernandez, Daniel P. Garton, Robert G. Gifford, David L. Lingerfelt, Marguerite Nader, Lawrence D. Raiman, Fredric J. Tomczyk, Liberty Property Trust and Prologis, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-9529 (Comm. Pleas Pa., December 16, 2019) was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on January 7, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00027. Garfield seeks damages resulting from Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties arising from the non-disclosure of material information to solicit shareholders' vote on the acquisition of Liberty Property Trust by Prologis Inc. Defendants claim that said case is removable to the Federal district court because the action is a covered class action involving a covered security under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 where the Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages on behalf of more than 50 persons or prospective class members. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon S. Harter, Esq. RUSSELL, KRAFFT & GRUBER, LLP 930 Red Rose Court, Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 19701 Tel: (717) 293-9293 Fax: (717) 293-5130 Email: bsh@rkglaw.com - and - Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 952-0602 Facsimile: (212) 952-0608 rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com Liberty Property Trust is represented by: Laura H. McNally, Esq. Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. Amanda F. Lashner, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 Email: Laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com Marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com Amanda.lashner@morganlewis.com LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Grace Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Loyal Source Government Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-00009 (M.D. Fla., January 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Loyal Source is a staffing company that provides healthcare professionals to government and private entities where Guerrero worked as a mid-level provider until August 2019. Loyal Source allegedly paid Guerrero the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Tel: (404) 965-8811 Facsimile: (404) 496-7405 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CPT Group Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- CPT Group, Inc., announced that last December, the Court tentatively approved a proposed settlement in Gold, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al, No.3:14cv-05373-RS, a class action alleging that Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Morning Star Strand Bamboo Flooring is unable to withstand typical ambient moisture which Lumber Liquidators failed to disclose to consumers. The Court has not decided that Lumber Liquidators did anything wrong. The Parties agreed to the Settlement to resolve the lawsuit. If you purchased Morning Star Strand Bamboo Flooring between January 1, 2012 and March 15, 2019 you may be eligible to participate in this Settlement. To possibly receive payment under the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form. Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement will be bound by the Settlement even if they do not submit a Claim Form. Settlement Class Members with an Approved Claim will be issued both Cash (in the form of a check) and a Lumber Liquidators' Voucher. Approved Claimants will be eligible to receive benefits from the Compensation Fund. Level One benefits will be calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the total purchase price of the Flooring. Any Approved Claimant with Flooring that meets Manifested Conditions may submit proof of such conditions to be considered eligible for Level Two Benefits. Level Two Benefits will be determined based on the value of the repair cost pursuant to a Contractors Bid, photographs and other requirements. Both Level One and Two Benefits shall be allocated equally on a pro-rata basis within each Level. To recover a cash payment, you must submit a Claim Form by July 15, 2020. Claim Forms can be found at www.bamboosettlement.com or can be requested by calling 1-888-404-0164. If you want to preserve any right to sue or continue to sue Lumber Liquidators on your own, related to the issues to be resolved by this proposed settlement, you must submit a written Request for Exclusion. If you submit a Request for Exclusion, you will not be eligible to receive any monetary payment and you cannot object to the Settlement. Any Request for Exclusion shall include your name, email address if available, address of the property(ies) that has the Flooring installed and specify the number of units of residential property or other structures at each address containing the Flooring. It must also state "I want to opt out of the Settlement Class in the Lumber Liquidators bamboo flooring litigation" or words to that effect, and by submitted by March 2, 2020 to Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.; c/o CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606. You can also object to the Settlement if you do not like any part of it. To object, you must submit to the Court a written objection entitled "Objection to Class Settlement in Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05373-RS (N.D. of Cal.)" by May 21, 2020. You must submit your objection to the Court by mailing to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 3 - 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. You may not object if you exclude yourself from the Settlement. This is only a summary. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. To obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreement, please visit www.bamboosettlement.com or contact the settlement administrator at 1-888-404-0164. Contact: CPT Group, Inc. Gold, et al., v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al. Settlement Administrator 50 Corporate Park Irvine Calif. 92606 Tel: 1-888-404-0164 [GN] MAYA AUTHENTIC: Salazar Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Illegal Tip Pool ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Ivan Montoya Salazar, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Maya Authentic Mexican Food LLC, Maya Authentic Mexican Food Corp., Isela Perez Pacheco, Victor Martinez Sandoval, Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-20-364 (D. Minn., January 9, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, withheld tips, all applicable statutory or legal penalties, monetary, statutory, and other damages and legal, injunctive, or equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as "Maya Cuisine" and "Maya Authentic Mexican Restaurant" restaurants serving Mexican cuisine in three locations in Minnesota. Salazar worked as a bartender for Maya. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime and whose tips were subjected to an unauthorized tip credit. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Gavigan, Esq. WILSON LAW GROUP 3019 Minnehaha Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55406 Phone: (612) 436-7100 Fax: (612) 436-7101 Email: mgavigan@wilsonlg.com MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 20-CV-151 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motions to stay the class certification motion and for relief from the local rules; and 2. staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. No briefing schedule is imposed. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016). The Plaintiff also moves for relief from local rules requiring every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing schedule. The Court grants these requests and stay the class action motion for Damasco purposes. Mercantile Adjustment operates as an accounts receivable management firm. The company focuses on pre-legal, legal, and dismissed bankruptcy collection services.[CC] METHODIST HOSPITALS: Johnson Sues Over Cyberattack & Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Johnson and Stana Shestp, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00042 (N.D. Ind., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for the proposed class arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach at TMH's medical facilities. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and approximately 68,000 class members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs add that their and class members' sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to TMH, its officials and agents--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant maintained their Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant TMH's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The Plaintiffs allege that the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of their and class members' Private Information was a known risk to the Defendant and, thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. TMH and its employees also failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information, the Plaintiffs further allege. Had TMH properly monitored its property, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant TMH collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are individual citizens of the State of Indiana. Defendant TMH is in the business of rendering healthcare services, medical care, and treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and – Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com MIAMI BEACH REALTY: Dressel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darrel Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIAMI BEACH REALTY, LLC, d/b/a KELLER WILLIAMS MIAMI BEACH REALTY; LUIS GONZALEZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00990 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's home and cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff did not have an established business relationship with the Defendants during the time of the solicitation calls, and the Plaintiff did not give them prior express written consent for them to call the Plaintiff's home or cellular telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes. The Plaintiff has requested for the Defendants to stop calling the Plaintiff during one of the initial calls, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit their services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, thus, repeatedly violating the Plaintiff's privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Agoura Hills, California. Miami Beach Realty is a nationwide real estate agent franchise 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 MICH. STATE UNIV. FEDERAL: Prelim. OK of $5MM NSF Suit Deal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled TIFFANY K. COLEMAN-WEATHERSBEE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:19-cv-11674-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants; (2) approve the proposed plan of notice to the Classes; (3) appoint the lower bidder of those administrators from which bids are being obtained as the claims administrator to provide the notice and administration program outlined in the Settlement Agreement; (4) set a schedule of dates, including a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved. The putative class action contends that Michigan State University Federal Credit Union ("MSUFCU ") improperly charged overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds ("NSF") fees in violation of the terms of its contracts governing the overdraft and NSF fee program for certain types of transactions. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant violated Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.17 ("Reg. E"), by enrolling credit union members in its overdraft program for subject transactions without first obtaining their affirmative consent based on a complete and valid disclosure of the terms. The Settlement provides that MSUFCU will pay $5,201,096 of cash money, with no reversion of any residue to MSUFCU. Effective December 12, 2019, MSUFCU agreed to cease assessing overdraft fees on transactions subject to Reg. E fees until it obtained new opt-ins in compliance with Reg. E and Regulation DD. Further, if MSUFCU collected such fees during this period, MSUFCU agreed to refund them. This is estimated to be worth $300,991 through January 31, 2020. Furthermore, depending on the rate at which the members re-opt in, this is estimated to potentially provide an additional $4,846,837 in savings on these Reg. E fees to Class Members. The Defendant will forgive certain uncollected fees, which were assessed on Class Members but not paid. This is estimated to be worth $250,274. MSUFCU also has agreed to more clearly disclose its overdraft practices, including defining available balance, describing the impact of holds on the available balance, and the possibility that it will assess multiple NSF fees on certain transactions, and has implemented processes to provide the revised member agreement and disclosures to new and existing members. The value of the settlement is estimated at $10,599,198, and the value of the settlement without the future savings for the reduction in Reg. E fees due to the new re-opt-in requirement is estimated at $5,752,361. The proposed settlement classes include members of MSUFCU in any of these five classes: 1. The "Sufficient Funds Class" is defined as those members of MSUFCU who between June 6, 2013 and December 9, 2019, were assessed and paid an overdraft fee on a Sufficient Funds Damage Transaction that was not refunded. A "Sufficient Funds Damage Transaction" is a transaction that was the subject of an overdraft fee when the account had a positive ledger balance following posting of the transaction and which was not refunded; 2. The "Pre-Litigation Regulation E Class" is defined as those members of MSUFCU who from and including June 6, 2013 through June 5, 2019, were assessed and paid an overdraft fee on a debit card or ATM transaction that was not refunded; 3. The "Post-Litigation Regulation E Class" is defined as those members of MSUFCU who from and including June 6, 2019 through December 11, 2019, were assessed and paid an overdraft fee on a debit card or ATM transaction that was not refunded; 4. The "Post-Resolution Regulation E Class" is defined as those who paid an overdraft fee charge on a Reg. E transaction after December 12, 2019, and before the member on whom such charge was assessed has opted in to the Reg. E overdraft program under the revised Opt-In Agreement sent in December 2019; and 5. The "Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class" means those members of MSUFCU from and including June 6, 2013 through December 9, 2019, who were assessed more than one NSF fee on a single payment transaction that was not refunded. According to the Motion, the Class Counsel intends to apply under a percentage-of-the-fund for one-third of the Value of the Settlement. The Value of the Settlement is reasonably estimated at this time at $10,599,198. However, the Class Counsel intends to cap its application at $2 million for attorneys' fees, despite one-third of the estimated value of the settlement equaling $3,533,066. The Motion for Final Approval will apply for a service award to Ms. Coleman-Weathersbee, which is valued at approximately $14,674, in the form of the forgiveness of a loan she has with MSUFCU in that amount, subject to the Court's approval.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com - and - Philip J. Goodman, Esq. HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO, PLC 801 W. Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 240 Plymouth, MI 48170 Telephone: (248) 760-2996 E-mail: PJGoodman1@aol.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Meyer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Sue Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00137 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MOUNTAIN RUN: Giavasis Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- NIKKI GIAVASIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS, LLC, D/B/A PERFECTION COLLECTION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-00029 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Mountain Run Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MULTIPLAN INC: Liou Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Liou, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Multiplan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00141 (S.D. N.Y., January 7, 2020), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is into the sale of health insurance. It engaged in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers and transmitted multiple text messages with intent to encourage its recipients to avail of its services. At no point in time did Liou provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St. Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 726-1092, (312) 726-1093 Email: keith@keoghlaw.com NEW YORK: Correction Officers Sue for Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------- Katrina Fulton and Darnell Walcott, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of New York and New York City Department of Correction, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00144 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2020) seeks non-monetary and/or compensatory damages, compensation for emotional distress, prejudgment interest for any and all other monetary and/or non-monetary losses, punitive and liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs are Correction Officers at the New York City Department of Correction. Fulton and Walcott filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and simultaneous complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights alleging individual and class discrimination claims. Fulton underwent a hysterectomy, as the uterine fibroid tumors stemming from her military service had persisted despite her prior surgeries and doctor advised her that she would be required to miss approximately eight weeks of work. Defendants denied the request for leave. Walcott was diagnosed with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, one of several respiratory conditions from which he suffers as a result of his military service and his doctor insisted that he take a medical leave of absence from work. Defendants granted Walcott's request for medical leave and, thereafter, designated him as "chronic absent" under the Absence Control Policy. Defendants restricted him from working any voluntary overtime based on this designation. Prior to his medical leave, Mr. Walcott typically worked approximately 16 hours of overtime per week. He appealed his "chronic absent" but the Defendants denied his appeal. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Camilo M. Burr, Esq. 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com ahartzband@faruqilaw.com cburr@faruqilaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Settles 401(k) Excessive Fees Suit for $12MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Jean Y. Yu and Donal P. Sullivan, writing for The National Law Review, reports that Northrop Grumman has agreed to pay $12,375,000 to settle a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by participants in its 401(k) plan. The parties reached the initial terms of this settlement last year minutes before the start of the trial. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the company's administration of the 401(k) plan harmed the plan's participants by using a costly management strategy for a risky investment fund and by using plan assets to overpay for administrative services. The long legal battle began in 2006 with a related lawsuit alleging that the plan was paying excessive administrative fees. That case was settled for $16,750,000 in 2017, but it limited the damages period to May 11, 2009. The participants of the 401(k) plan alleged that they continued to be charged excessive fees after the damages period in the first lawsuit ended and the current class action was brought in 2016 on similar claims. By August 2019, the only claim that remained in the case asserted that Northrop violated its fiduciary duties by choosing an active-management style for the emerging markets fund instead of a low-cost passive-management style. Northrop switched to a passive management style in 2014. The proposed $12,375,000 settlement fund will be used to pay participants of the 401(k) plan, $25,000 incentive payments to each of the six named plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and costs. The court had set a preliminary approval hearing for the settlement January 31st. The important take-away for employers who act as fiduciaries of their benefit plans is that they are obligated to act both substantively and procedurally prudent at all times. A fiduciary can aid its defense in a future lawsuit by documenting the processes used for all decisions connected to the administration of the plan. A plan administrator does not have to be omnipotent but must be able to show the processes leading to the ultimate decisions were prudent. [GN] NOVO NORDISK: Class Certified in Central States Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Brian R. Martinotti grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit styled IN RE NOVO NORDISK SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00209-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.). The Motion to Certify Class is filed by Plaintiffs Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Boston Retirement System, and Employees' Pension Plan of the City of Clearwater. Judge Martinotti also ruled that the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Lead Plaintiffs' Export Report is denied. The Motion to Exclude is filed by Defendants Novo Nordisk A/S, Lars Rebien Sorensen, Jesper Brandgaard, and Jakob Riis.[CC] PATTERN ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-08437-RS, on behalf of shareholders of Pattern Energy Group Inc. ("Pattern" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PEGI ) who have been harmed by Pattern's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (the "Proposed Transaction"). On November 3, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger under which Pattern shareholders stand to receive $26.75 in case for each share of Pattern stock they own. The complaint alleges that the Proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Pattern shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/PEGI . Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] PINGER INC: Bid for Class Certification in Regan Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Lucas Regan, the Plaintiff v. Pinger, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00486 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang entered an order denying, without prejudice, the motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 30, 2020, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is premature because none of the necessary discovery has even started, let along finished. To the extent that Plaintiff filed the motion to prevent mootness if the defense were to offer full relief, that is no longer necessary after the decision in Campbell−Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To the extent that Plaintiff is concerned about the question left open by Campbell−Ewald (whether payment of funds into an account to be paid to Plaintiff or deposited with the Court should require entry of judgment), the premature certification motion is still unnecessary, because the Court will not enter judgment without allowing Plaintiff to file an objection to entry of judgment, including whether the relief is full or whether that procedure is even proper. Pinger is a US Telecom provider for free texts, pics, calls, voicemails.[CC] PIZZA HUT: Faces Kennedy Suit Over Unsolicited Automated Text Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marsha Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIZZA HUT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00200 (D. Nev., Jan. 30, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated text messages to the cellular telephone of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All of the subject text messages sent to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class constituted "advertisements" or "telemarketing" messages within the meaning of the TCPA and its implementing regulations because each such message was aimed at promoting the commercial availability of the Defendant's products and services and ultimately selling such products and services, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the text messages were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without the requisite prior "express written consent" of the Plaintiff or any member of the putative Class. The Defendant also transmits text messages to consumers using the telephone number 69488, which is also a dedicated SMS short-code telephone number leased or owned by or on behalf of the Defendant that the Defendant uses to transmit text messages to consumers en masse, in an automated fashion and without human intervention, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff argues that neither her nor any other member of the putative Class provided their prior "express written consent" to the Defendant or any of its affiliate, subsidiary, or agent to transmit the subject text message advertisements. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada. Pizza Hut, LLC is the owner of the "Pizza Hut" chain of restaurants, which are located throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Phone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 Email: david@omaralaw.net - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com PLI CHICAGO: Means Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------- Kevin Means, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PLI Chicago, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2020CH00158 (Ill. Cir., January 7, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; as well as statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. PLI is a gift, loyalty, and key card manufacturer in Chicago where Means was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. The complaint asserts that PLI improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com docketing@fishlawfirm.com PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard Smith Notes of March 16 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming March 16, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) securities between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Portola investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. 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 March 16, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, announces the filing of a federal securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA) between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., you may, no later than March 16, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Portola's internal control over financial reporting regarding reserve for product returns was not effective; Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf life; Portola had not established adequate reserve for returns of prior shipments of short-dated product; As a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to "catch up" on accounting for return reserves; and 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. On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, citing a $5 million reserve adjustment for short-dated product and flat quarter-over-quarter demand for the disappointing financials. On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.98 per share, or approximately 40%, to close at $14.76. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com [GN] PROGRESSIVE GARDEN: Ferrara Files Suit for Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE CO. The case is styled as Lorianna Ferrara, Beabi Nanku, Edward Kaminsky, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01183-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. Progressive Garden State Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products including automobile, motorcycle, homeowner, and mobile home, as well as provides life and health insurance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Andrew DiCello, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 MENTOR AVENUE MENTOR, OH 44060 Phone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com QUDIAN INC: Holzer & Holzer Alerts Investors to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer & Holzer, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Qudian, Inc. (NYSE: QD) securities between December 13, 2018 and January 15, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Qudian failed to disclose that regulatory developments in China were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's FY 19 projections and results. On January 16, 2020, Qudian announced that it was withdrawing its guidance and declining to issue new guidance "due to uncertainty related to the recent regulatory and operating environment." The price of Qudian securities fell following the announcement. If you purchased shares of Qudian securities between December 13, 2018 and January 15, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy at lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 to discuss your legal rights. Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D. Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. Contact: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC Tel: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] QUDIAN INC: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Qudian Inc. (NYSE: QD) for violations of §§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 December 13, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 23, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Qudian's financial results for fiscal year 2019 were under threat due to regulatory changes in China. The Company was completely unprepared to mitigate risks associated with these changes. The Company's loan portfolio suffered from a growing delinquency rate as a result. 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 Qudian, 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. [GN] REALTYSHARES INC: Shapiro Haber Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action against RealtyShares, Inc., RS Lending, Inc. and others ("Defendants"), for violations of federal and state securities laws, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Raudonis v. RealtyShares, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 20-cv-10107 The Complaint arises out of Defendants' solicitation of investors in 2016 to purchase debt securities relating to a loan to Ingersoll Financial, LLC (the "Nationwide SFR Package") and in or around 2018 to purchase debt securities relating to loans involving Franchise Growth, LLC, including a loan involving a Church's Chicken in Owensboro, Kentucky. In soliciting these investments, Defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of federal and state law. Defendants also offered the securities by means of written communications that included untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in violation of state law. The action is brought on behalf of the following classes and subclass, defined as follows: All persons or entities who purchased debt securities offered or sold by RealtyShares or RS Lending relating to loans to Franchise Growth and/or associated entities for property acquisition and construction; All persons or entities who purchased debt securities related to a loan to Franchise Growth and/or associated entities for property acquisition and construction of a Church's Chicken restaurant to be located at 2735 Calumet Trace, Owensboro, Kentucky; and All persons or entities who purchased debt securities related to a loan to Ingersoll Financial for property acquisition and repair of 125 properties across the United States, known as the Nationwide SFR Package. If you purchased debt securities relating to loans involving Franchise Growth, including the loan regarding the Church's Chicken in Owensboro, or relating to the Nationwide SFR Package, you may move the court to appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from today. The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiff's claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained from the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. A copy of the Complaint is also available on the firm's web site, www.shulaw.com. More information about the law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its qualifications is also available on the firm's website. If you would like more information about this case, please contact Ian McLoughlin at the firm's telephone numbers below or by email at cases@shulaw.com. Contact: Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 2 Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939 [GN] RESORT SALES: Cardenas Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Henna Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESORT SALES BY SPINNAKER, INC., a South Carolina corporation, RESORT SALES MISSOURI, INC., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-00376-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited telephone calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide, who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured by their conduct. In an attempt to market and sell their timeshare properties, whiting a single year, the Defendants made multiple unsolicited promotional telephone calls to the landline telephone of the Plaintiff and thousands of other members of the putative classes, who are registered on the do not call registry, the Plaintiff asserts. In response to the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff files this action seeking an injunction require the Defendants to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the TCPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Warren County, New Jersey. The Defendants are corporations that market timeshare properties located in South Carolina, Missouri and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret A. Collins, Esq. P.S.L.G., LLC d/b/a PALMETTO STATE LAW GROUP, LLC 2241 Bush River Road Columbia, SC 29210 Phone: (803) 708-7442 - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: Law@StefanColeman.com RIVIERA HOTEL CORP: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RIVIERA HOTEL CORP. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIERA HOTEL CORP, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01163 (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Riviera Hotel Corporation was established in 1950 and incorporated in New Jersey. The company is in the Hotels-Apartment business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 500 Old Country Road, Suite 302 Garden City, NE 11530 Phone: (516) 279-1554 Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com SAMORMA INC: Burris Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------- Leah Burris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Samorma Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2020CH00196 (Ill. Cir., January 7, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, as well as statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Defendant owns and operates Dunkin Donuts locations, along with other similar restaurant establishments, in Illinois where Burris was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. The complaint asserts that Defendant improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. Mark Bulgarelli, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103 Evanston, IL 60201 Tel: 312-787-2717 SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Mendoza Moves for FLSA Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARVIN MENDOZA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00195 (M.D. Tenn.), moves the Court to issue an order: (1) authorizing this action to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for the Defendant's minimum wage and overtime compensation violations occurring at the Defendant's clients' hospitals and medical facilities at any time within three (3) years of the filing of the complaint; (2) the directing Defendant to immediately provide the Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known e-mail addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members during the last three years; (3) providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with the Defendant's currently-employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paychecks/stubs, and be mailed and e-mailed to the Defendant's 1099 ATEs employed in the past three years so they can timely assert their claims as part of this litigation; (4) authorizing a reminder postcard be issued mid-way through the 90-day notice period; (5) tolling the putative class' statute of limitations as of the date this Motion is filed; and (6) deeming Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms "filed" on the dates they are postmarked (excluding those who opted in prior to Court-supervised Notice being sent).[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Papadimitropoulos Suit Held in Abeyance -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow issued an order holding the case captioned as CONSTANTINO PAPADIMITROPOULOS, ET AL. v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-11779-AJT-SDD (E.D. Mich.), in abeyance for 90 days for limited discovery and settlement discussions. On January 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Before the merits of their arguments are adjudicated, Judge Tarnow says, the parties will engage in limited discovery in order to pursue class settlement discussions. The class claims will be tolled during this period, citing China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018). If it becomes clear that settlement negotiations are not fruitful at any time before the expiry of the 90 days, the parties may refile or reopen their motions, Judge Tarnow tells the parties. Accordingly, Judge Tarnow rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, and Defendant's Motion to Stay are denied without prejudice. The parties are directed to update the Court on the status of their negotiations no later than April 30, 2020.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Armstrong Windshield Row Transferred to N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Gordon Armstrong, Andrew Vierra, Sandy Moreno and Stephen Merman, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru Of America, Inc. and Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10340 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2019) was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 2, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00243. Plaintiffs are owners of Subaru vehicles whose windshields spontaneously and/or unreasonably crack, chip and otherwise break and their replacement windshields suffer from the same defect. They seek damages, equitable relief and attorney's fees and costs as a result of breach of implied warranty and in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. designs, manufactures, distributes and markets Subaru vehicles around the world. Subaru of America, Inc. is the U.S. sales and marketing subsidiary of Fuji and wholly owned subsidiary responsible for distribution, marketing, sales and service of Subaru vehicles in the United States. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-6824 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Subaru of America is represented by: Scott S. Humphreys, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (424) 204-4400 Fax: (424) 204-4350 Email: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com SULLIVAN BUICK-CADILLAC-GMC: Sued by Hussain for Violating TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Shabana Hussain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SULLIVAN BUICK-CADILLAC-GMC TRUCK, INC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-00038 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, the Plaintiff contends. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff adds. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a natural person who a resident of Marion County, Florida. The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 786.496.4469 Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.533.4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com SYSCO CORP: Class Cert. Bid Denied as to Meal & Rest Break Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as HENRY HERNANDEZ, the Plaintiff v. SYSCO CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06723-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order on Feb. 3, 2020: 1. denying a motion for class certification with respect to Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims as individualized issues predominate those claims; 2. granting the motion for class certification as to a narrowed off-the-clock claim for individuals who worked during their unpaid meal breaks as well as the derivative failure to pay wages at the end of employment and failure to provide accurate paystubs claims. 3. appointing Henry Hernandez as Class Representative; and 4. appointing Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel. The Court said, "As Plaintiff has not shown that he has standing to pursue a claim that Sysco failed to pay Selectors for work performed before they clocked-in, and he in fact testified that he did clock-in before he performed any work, the Court will not certify the proposed off-the-clock claim based on work performed before clocking-in for the beginning of a shift. While the evidence shows that for 50% of shifts the Selectors did not take their full 30-minute meal break and instead performed at least some work during that period, and that for 86% of scheduled rest breaks the Selectors performed at least some work, Plaintiff has not identified any common method of proving why the Selector worked during the meal or rest period. Thus, Plaintiff has not satisfied the predominance factor for his meal and rest break claims." The Plaintiff brings state law wage and hour claims against his former employer Sysco Corporation and Sysco San Francisco on behalf of himself and a putative class. The Plaintiff insists that Defendants failed to provide rest and meal breaks, failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, and failed to comply with requirements to provide accurate itemized wage statements and final pay. Sysco distributes food and related products to restaurants, health and educational facilities, lodging establishments and other customers in the food services industry from its warehouse in Fremont.[CC] TARGET CORP: Monroe Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Deena Monroe on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Target Corporation, Johnny Camacho and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00266832, (Cal. Super., October 11, 2019) was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 7, 2019 under Case No. 20-at-00027. Monroe claims for relief for Target's alleged failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay final wages and unfair competition.[BN] Monroe is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Kevin Francis Barrett, Esq. Teresa Allen, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES APC 1970 Broadway Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 891-9800 Fax: (510) 891-7030 Email: scole@scalaw.com Defendants are represented by: Samantha C. Grant, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 Email: SGrant@sheppardmullin.com - and - Babak Yousefzadeh, Esq. Victoria L. Tallman, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: BYousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com VTallman@sheppardmullin.com TETHER LTD: Does Not Oppose Merger of 3 Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Pirus, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that currently facing multiple lawsuits, cryptocurrency stablecoin issuer Tether (USDT) received a request from prosecutors asking for consolidation, combining three lawsuits into one, which Tether has not denied. "We did not oppose the plaintiffs' requests to combine these frivolous claims, originally filed, respectively, in October in New York, in November in Washington and in January in New York," reads a Tether statement shared with Cointelegraph via email on Jan. 17, 2020. Various parties have suspected Tether, alongside related exchange Bitfinex, of foul play numerous times over their years in existence. One of the most recent ordeals on the subject purports that Tether and Bitfinex allegedly caused Bitcoin's bull run of 2017 by carrying out illegal activities. As a result, three lawsuits against Tether surfaced, which now may be combined into a single prosecution. Request for consolidation Legal counsel for the lawsuits - Leibowitz, Young and Faubus - filed a letter with the presiding judge on Jan. 16 requesting a merger of the three disputes. The letter included that the mentioned lawsuits overlap in multiple areas, sharing similarities which may allow for consolidation. Tether's statement to Cointelegraph noted an additional claim pending: "A fourth class action was also filed in New York yesterday, which we expect will be consolidated with the previous three actions," the statement read, before dismissing the lot: "None of these cases present meritorious claims." Comments on legitimacy Additionally, Tether claimed that the prosecutors' research is incorrect, explaining: "That research deploys preselected data to retrofit a desired narrative and demonstrates a patent misunderstanding of the cryptocurrency market and the demand that drives purchases of Tether." "Tether will continue to defend the digital token ecosystem and the many contributions of the cryptocurrency community, and will not now or in the future pay any amount to settle plaintiffs' claims," the statement continued. "Tether and its affiliates have never used Tether tokens or issuances to manipulate the cryptocurrency market or token pricing." Suspicions against Tether are long-standing, however, as the company has headlined numerous articles about its allegedly questionable fiat backing over the past several years. [GN] TRANSAMERICA CORP: Karg Seeks to Certify Plan Participants Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JEREMY KARG, MATTHEW R. LAMARCHE, CYNTHIA K. MARSHALL, SHIRLEY RHODES, ROWENA W. SUTTON, and JEANINE E. VEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION; TRUSTEES OF THE AEGON USA, INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST; and DOES 1-40, Case No. 1:18-cv-00134-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), seeks an order: (a) certifying this class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All participants and beneficiaries of the Transamerica 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") who invested in (a) the Transamerica International Equity Portfolio, (b) the Transamerica Small Core Portfolio, (c) the Transamerica Large Value Portfolio, (d) Transamerica Large Growth Portfolio, (e) Transamerica High Yield Bond Portfolio, and/or (f) the Transamerica Mid Value Portfolio (the "Challenged Funds"), at any time from December 28, 2012 through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants; (b) appointing Plaintiffs Jeremy Karg, Matthew R. LaMarche, Cynthia K. Marshall, Shirley Rhodes, and Jeanine E. Vega as Class Representatives; and (c) appointing Paul Blankenstein, Esq., Charles H. Field, Esq., Alexandra Harwin, Esq., and David Tracey, Esq., as Class Counsel. As a condition of the Defendants' agreement to not resist the instant motion, the Plaintiffs have agreed not to name, as defendants in this action, any individuals, who are or have been employed by or associated with Transamerica during the relevant time period, including any and all of the individual Trustees of The AEGON USA, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust ("Plan Trustees").[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 577-4242 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. Alexandra Harwin, Esq. David Tracey, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com aharwin@sanfordheisler.com dtracey@sanfordheisler.com - and - Paul Blankenstein, Esq. Robert Van Someren Greve, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 499-513 Facsimile: (202) 499-5199 E-mail: pblankenstein@sanfordheisler.com rvansomerengreve@sanfordheisler.com TROPSTAR LLC: Griffin Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Griffin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TROPSTAR LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a SPENCER'S CORNER BAR, and RAYMOND STARNES, individually, Case No. 0:20-cv-60206-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendants failed to pay him time and one-half wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked each week, with the Defendants instead paying him straight-time wages in cash for his overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and performed non-exempt duties as a dishwasher. Tge Defendants have owned and operated a bar-restaurant doing business as SPENCER'S CORNER BAR located in Wilton Manors, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com UNITED STATES: Settlement in Quero Suit Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER QUERO, COURTNEY FRANCIS, and KELLIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Defendant, Case No. 18 Civ. 9509 (GBD) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval to the proposed class settlement. The Complaint seeks certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a motion for final approval of a proposed Settlement, and the Defendant has consented to the motion. Judge Daniels finds that the Class meets all the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). The Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. For these reasons, the Judge certified the class, for the purposes of settlement only, consisting of all individuals who obtained a TCI Loan and who were enrolled at TCI or on an approved leave of absence from TCI when the school closed or who withdrew from TCI not more than 120 days prior to the school's closure (and all parents who obtained a TCI Loan for such a student), except that the class will not include any individual who has died or any individual who has applied for or received a closed school discharge of a TCI Loan. Judge Daniels appointed (1) Christopher Quero, Courtney Francis, and Kellin Rodriguez as Class Representatives; and (2) The New York Legal Assistance Group as class counsel for the purposes of the Settlement. The Plaintiffs may submit any claim for reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act within 90 days of the Order. The Defendant reserves the right to oppose any such claim. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Final Order is available at https://is.gd/ZrH6EJ from Leagle.com. Christopher Quero, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Courtney Francis, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated & Kellin Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo -- info@nylag.org -- New York Legal Assistance Group, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group & Jessica Grace Ranucci. Elisabeth DeVos, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Defendant, represented by Rachael Lightfoot Doud, U.S. Attorney Office. VELOX EXPRESS: York Moves to Certify Class of Drivers & Couriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled VANESSA YORK, MARSHAL EMMERLING, and MATTHEW MOSS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VELOX EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00092-JRW-CHL (W.D. Ky.), moves for conditional certification of this class: All individuals who worked as delivery drivers or couriers for Defendant at any time after February 6, 2016. Vanessa York, et al., also seek the Court's approval of certain procedures for providing reasonable notice and opportunity to join this case for putative collective members. The Plaintiffs aver that the Notices and Consents make no comment on the merits of the case. The Notices are narrowly drawn to notify potential collective members of the pending litigation, the composition of the collective and their right to "opt in" to the litigation. The Plaintiffs also seek a period of ninety (90) days to distribute the Notice and file Consent forms with the Court and ask that the Court to enter an Order directing the Defendant to provide the names, including any aliases they may have gone by or go by now, last known home and work addresses, and any and all email addresses of potential opt-in Plaintiffs (or alternatively, any and all cell phone numbers of which the Defendant is aware) no later than one (1) week after the date of the entry of the Order granting this Motion. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and certain former and current delivery drivers and couriers for Defendant Velox Express, Inc. to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other claims.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Michele Henry, Esq. CRAIG HENRY PLC 401 West Main Street, Suite 1900 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 614-5962 Facsimile: (502) 614-5968 E-mail: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin C. Fultz, Esq. John David Dyche, Esq. FULTZ MADDOX DICKENS PLC 101 South Fifth Street, 27th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 588-2000 E-mail: bfultz@fmdlegal.com jddyche@fmdlegal.com WAWA INC: Faces McGlade Suit in E.D. Pa. for Not Protecting PII --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN AND KAREN MCGLADE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., WILD GOOSE HOLDING CO., INC., RICHARD D. WOOD, JR., CHRIS GHEYSENS, JOHN COLLIER, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-00248-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2020), arises from Wawa's unlawful, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and its egregious, gross negligence in allowing cybercriminals to steal the personal identifiable information of its employees, in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiffs contend that Wawa makes exorbitant profits at the expense of its hard working employees and unwittingly loyal customers. Wawa betrays the trust of its employees and the loyalty of its customers by willfully putting at risk of attack by cyberbcriminals their PII. They add that Wawa deliberately chose to maintain antiquated information technology systems, exposing its employees' PII and its customers' credit and debit card information to cyber attack. The Plaintiffs argue that Wawa does so in order to save the millions of dollars it would have had to spend to design and implement a modern cybersecurity program that complied with industry standards. Mr. McGlade was employed as a General Manager of Wawa in 2019 and is in charge of one of the 850 Wawa stores. Karen is the wife of Mr. McGlade. Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq. HAVIL AND HUGHES 201 South Maple Way, Suite 110 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 609-4661 Facsimile: (215) 392-4400 E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com WEST VIRGINIA: Baxley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN BAXLEY, JR., ERIC L. JONES, SAMUEL STOUT, AMBER ARNETT, EARL EDMONDSON, JOSHUA HALL, DONNA WELLS-WRIGHT, ROBERT WATSON, HEATHER REED, and DANNY SPIKER, JR., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, the WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, and SHELBEY SEARLS, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01526 (S.D.W.Va.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify these class and subclass for declaratory and injunctive relief: Class: "all persons who were at any time on or after December 18, 2018, or who will be, admitted to a jail in West Virginia with a discernable, treatable medical and/or mental health problem;" Subclass: "all persons who were at any time on or after December 18, 2018, or who will be, admitted to a jail in West Virginia who meet the definition of being a "qualified individual with a disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act." The Plaintiffs brought this action to address alleged widespread, systemic failures by Defendants to provide adequate, timely medical and mental health treatment to inmates in jail facilities. The West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation is an agency of the U.S. state of West Virginia within the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety that operates the state's prisons, jails and juvenile detention facilities.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia C. Milnes, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 325 Willey Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Telephone: (304) 326-0188 Facsimile: (304) 326-0189 E-mail: lydia@msjlaw.org jennifer@msjlaw.org WILLIAMS‑SONOMA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- According to Perkins Coie, the parties to class action litigation frequently contest whether plaintiffs are entitled to pre-certification discovery aimed at identifying additional or replacement class representatives. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently left little doubt of the answer: no. In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. 19-70522, slip op. at 4-11 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2020). The clear, narrow decision benefits class action defendants resisting exploratory discovery efforts by opposing counsel. Williams‑Sonoma, Inc., the defendant in a putative consumer class action, challenged a district court order to produce a list of California customers who might replace the named plaintiff as a class representative. Because the discovery order was not appealable, Williams‑Sonoma petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus—an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear errors of law that cannot be adequately addressed through other means. The panel majority held that Williams‑Sonoma had met the demanding mandamus standard. The district court clearly erred, the majority determined, because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "seeking discovery of the name of a class member . . . is not relevant within the meaning of" Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Id. at 7 (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350–53 (1978)). The majority rejected a familiar refrain: that "the information sought in discovery was relevant to class certification issues, such as commonality, typicality, ascertainability, and reliance." Id. at 10. It was unpersuaded by post-Oppenheimer amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) and the distinction that Oppenheimer, unlike the district court's decision, addressed discovery after class certification. Id. at 9–10. Two other aspects of Williams‑Sonoma warrant observation. First, the manner in which the case arrived in court was atypical: the district court held provisionally that the named plaintiff could not represent a class of California customers. This action made it clear on appeal that "[t]he purpose of the discovery was to enable opposing counsel to find a lead plaintiff to pursue a class action against Williams‑Sonoma under California law." Id. at 4–5. More often, the adequacy of the named plaintiff remains an open question until the class certification stage, making it easier before class certification to camouflage the goal of finding additional or replacement class representatives. Again, the Williams‑Sonoma majority was unimpressed that the identity of California customers could be relevant to other, class certification-related issues. Id. at 10. Second, a dissenting judge expressed two views—(1) the majority overread Oppenheimer and (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, governing class action procedures, also authorizes the district court's discovery order. Id. at 12–17. In sum, the Ninth Circuit provided valuable clarity favoring class action defendants. Before class certification, the identity of potential class representatives is not relevant and not discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). [GN] WM BOLTHOUSE: May 4 Final Hearing on Felix FCRA Suit Settlement Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC FELIX, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00312-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approved in part the Parties' Motion for Final Approval and Notice Packet. On Jan. 7, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Parties' Class Action Release and Settlement Agreement. On Jan. 14, 2020, the Parties stipulated to an administration timeline and hearing on the Motion for Final Approval and Notice Packet. Thus, Magistrate Judge Thurston approved in part the Notice Packet filed on Jan. 14, 2020. The hearing on the motion for final approval is set on May 4, 2020. Before mailing, the Notice Packet will be amended to list May 4, 2020 as the hearing date and a copy of the amended Notice Packet will be filed no later than Jan. 21, 2020. The deadline for the Defendant to provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class List and Data was Jan. 21, 2020. The deadline for the Settlement Administrator to Mail the Notice Packets is Feb. 15, 2020. The deadline for the Class Members to Opt Out or object is April 5, 2020. The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval is set on May 4, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. with the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval to be filed by April 10, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/8SCq0w from Leagle.com. Eric Felix, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Davtyan -- emil@davtyanlaw.com -- Davtyan Professional Law Corporation, Eric Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC & Kelsey Szamet -- kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley, APC. WM. Bolthouse Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Adrianne Baltazar -- ashley.baltazar@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. XEROX BUSINESS: Court Approves Class Notice Plan in Hill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, LIVEBRIDGE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. C12-0717-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the parties' stipulated motion to approve their proposed class notice plan. On Aug. 13, 2019, the Court certified the class. The parties now move for approval of their class notice and notice plan. Judge Coughenour finds that the parties' proposed notice form and notice plan satisfy the elements of Rule 23. Accordingly, the Judge granted the parties' motion for approval of the proposed class notice plan. The Defendants is directed to provide a list with updated addresses to the Plaintiff's counsel and the notice administrator. The notice administrator will mail class action notices without delay. The notice and opt-out period will close 45 days after notice is mailed to all the potential class members. The notice administrator will submit a report to the Court regarding opt-outs and the final class list no later than 10 days after the opt-out period closes. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/NeezTZ from Leagle.com. Tiffany Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Foster Johnson -- djohnson@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC, Jon Walker MacLeod, MACLEOD LLC, Marc C. Cote -- mcote@frankfreed.com -- FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS & Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. LiveBridge Inc, an Oregon Corporation, Affiliated Computer Services Inc, a Delaware Corporation & Affiliated Computer Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, represented by Patrick M. Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Ryan Drew Redekopp -- ryan.redekopp@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Todd L. Nunn -- todd.nunn@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP. Xerox Business Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel P. Hurley -- daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M. Madden, K&L GATES LLP & Todd L. Nunn, K&L GATES LLP. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Unions Sue Over NDMA-Laced Valsartan and VCDs -------------------------------------------------------------- Employers and Laborers Locals 100 and 397 Health and Welfare Fund and Steamfitters Local 439, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00125 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the economic harm caused by the Defendants as a result of the Plaintiffs' and other class members' reimbursements for the Defendants' adulterated, misbranded and/or unapproved valsartan and valsartan-containing drugs. Valsartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure. Valsartan and VCDs are generic versions of the branded registered listed drugs ("RLDs") Diovan, Diovan HCT, Exforge, and/or Exforge HCT. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants illegally manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed and distributed Valsartan and VCDs in the United States as FDA-approved generic versions of Diovan, Diovan HCT, Exforge, and Exforge HCT. The Defendants are ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.; HUAHAI US INC.; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE US, LLC; HETERO LABS, LTD.; HETERO DRUGS, LIMITED; HETERO USA INC.; CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MYLAN LABORATORIES, LTD.; MYLAN N.V.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ARROW PHARM MALTA LTD.; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; TORRENT PRIVATE LIMITED; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; "JOHN DOE" WHOLESALERS; A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC; BRYANT RANCH PREPACK, INC.; H J HARKINS CO., INC. d/b/a PHARMA PAC; MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; REMEDYREPACK, INC.; NORTHWIND PHARMACEUTICALS; NUCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PREFERRED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AVKARE, INC.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; WALMART INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION; THE KROGER, CO.; MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; PRAXIS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; and "JOHN DOE" PHARMACIES. The Plaintiffs and Class members are third-party payors ("TPPs")--private health insurance companies, third-party administrators, health maintenance organizations, municipalities or governmental entities health and welfare funds that make payments from their own funds and other health benefit providers and entities with self-funded plans that contract with health insurers or administrators to administer prescription drug benefits. The Plaintiffs contend that their and Class members' beneficiaries, who ingested VCDs manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendants, were exposed to N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a probable human carcinogen, N-nitrosodiethylamine ("NDEA"), a suspected human carcinogen, and potentially other unsafe, non-FDA-approved ingredients. The Defendants knew or had reason to know that their VCDs were adulterated, misbranded, not FDA-approved, and would increase the risk of cancer to users, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, declaratory judgment, costs and expenses of suit incurred, pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Plaintiff Laborers Locals 100 and 397 is a non-profit trust, sponsored and administered by a Board of Trustees, established through collective bargaining by labor unions and employers. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Zhejiang, China.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Cates, Esq. CATES MAHONEY, LLC 216 W Pointe Drive, Suite A Swansea, IL 62226 Phone: (618) 277-3644 Fax: (618) 277-7882 Email: DCates@cateslaw.com - and - Charles J. Baricevic, Esq. CHATHAM & BARICEVIC 107 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: (618) 233-2200 Fax: (618) 233-1589 Email: cj@chathamlaw.org - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: DLevin@lfsblaw.com CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com Nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***