/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200217.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 34
Headlines
500.COM LIMITED: Block and Leviton File Class Action in NJ
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Transfer of King Drug Case to N.D. Ga. Denied
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles California Labor Class Action for $5.4MM
AK STEEL: Franchi Suit Balks at Merger Deal With Cleveland-Cliffs
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces Joseph FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Rottenberg FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTA MESA: Leaseholders' Royalties Class Action Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Sues Alleging Violations of Securities Laws
AMALIE OIL: Settles XCEL Motor Oil Class Action in U.S.
AMERICAN HONDA: CR-V Cars Have Flawed Sensing System, Ward Says
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Cuyohoga and Summit Counties Settle for $66.7MM
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Faces Generic Drug Price Fixing-Related Suit
AMMA PRIVATE: Bannister Law Investigates Class Action
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tipton Says
ANTHOM LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges
ARSTRAT LLC: Holt Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Sues Over Seroquel XR Monopoly
AUSTRALIA: Sports Clubs May Bring Class Action Over Funding
AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
AXH HOLDINGS: Faces Cooks Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Mandosia Fraud Suit Dismissal
BETTERWELL LLC: Sued by Steele in California Over TCPA Violation
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
BROADBASE INC: Prasad Sues in California Over Employment Disputes
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Lebovits Says
CHATTEM INC: Court Remands Icy Hot Applicator Suit to Super. Court
CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of De Jesus Suit v. Policemen Fund Upheld
CHRISTINE HOTCHKIN: MacDonald Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Leitner FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
COCA-COLA CO: Salerno Sues Over False Labels on Iced Tea Drinks
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S: Mejia Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
CONOPCO INC: Faces Civello Suit in Southern District of New York
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA
CSAA GENERAL: Siler Suit Over Policy Breach Removed to M.D. Pa.
D & M CARRIERS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Faces Begg Class Suit Alleging Violation of ADA
DRAEGER INC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' PII, Soraghan Alleges
DUPONT: Cumberland County Homebuyers Unaware of PFAs
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Greenhut FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
EDUCATION CREDIT: Reyes May Amend Pleadings in TCPA-CIPA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Give Proper COBRA Notice, Roll Claims
EZCORP INC: Cash Converters Settles Class Suit in Australia
EZCORP INC: Securities Suit Dismissed After Settlement Approval
FACEBOOK INC: Consolidated Cyber-Attack Class Suit Ongoing
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct
FACEBOOK INC: Four Developers File Class Action Over Spyware
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Agreed in Consolidated Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Biometrics Suit
FBCS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Cymonisse Claims
FINANCIAL ASSET: Panzarella Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Denison Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST TRANSIT: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Cuellar Says
FISH SIX RESTAURANT: Faces Hopkins Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FIVE GUYS: Initial Approval of Lusk Suit Settlement Denied
FLEX LTD: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit Set for April 9
FORSTER & GARBUS: Garcia Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Misrepresents Purell Sanitizer, Jurkiewicz Says
GPS SERVICES: Faces Andrews Suit in Calif.; April 15 Hearing Set
GREATER ALLIANCE: Reports Incorrect Credit Info, Sosa Suit Says
HEAVY HAMMER: Faces Hildre TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
HYCROFT MINING: Faces Pope Suit Over Breach of Warrant Agreement
ILM FIELD SERVICES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Adams et al. Say
IQ FORMULATIONS: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Debernardis Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Gumm Class Action under Advisement
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits
KEURIG GREEN: Court Moves Hearing Date, Briefing Sked to March 6
KMK CARE: Faces Taylor Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
KTDA HOLDINGS: Farmers File Class Action Suit Over Losses
KUEHNE + NAGEL: Joromat Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION: Ct. Denies Bid to Remand Russell Case
LAWNSTARTER INC: Faces Shepardson TCPA Suit in North Carolina
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Faces Scheyer ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MAINLAND SKATE: Faces Begg Suit in California Over ADA Violation
MALLINCKRODT ARD: Marietta City Sues Over Contract-Related Issues
MARION COUNTY, OR: Jail Over Detention Class Action Pending
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Suit Moved to District of South Carolina
MARSH AND MCLENNAN: Kaufman Sues Over Use of Consumer Reports
MAUSER USA: Valenzuela Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
MDL 1917: Puerto Rico vs. Panasonic Suit Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2738: Denwiddie and Abram Suits Moved to New Jersey
MDL 2741: 6 Roundup Product Liability Suits Moved to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2800: Court Vacates Transfer Orders for 3 Data Security Suits
MDL 2804: 22 Prescription Opiate Suits Transferred to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Court Remands 2 Prescription Opiate Suits in Ohio
MDL 2804: Transfer Order for Arlington County Suit Vacated
MDL 2873: Bid to Move Hardwick v. 3M to South Carolina Denied
MDL 2913: 5 Juul Labs Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California
MDL 2923: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 VeroBlue Farms Lawsuits
MDL 2924: 15 Zantac Product Liability Suits Moved to Florida
MDL 2925: 31 Rail Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suits Moved to D.C.
MDL 2927: Court Denies Defendants' Bid to Centralize 4 Patent Suits
MDL 2928: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 21 Trafficking Suits
MED SHIELD: Morton Sues in S.D. Indiana Alleging FDCPA Violation
MENARD INC: Faces Childers Suit in Wisc. Over Breach of Contract
MENN LAW: Awaits Final Court Approval of Cole FDCPA Suit Deal
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Perry Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued by Guiliano in Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
NEWBEAUTY MEDIA: Ct. Directs Parties to File Info re Proposed Deal
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Recover Costs from Insurers Pending
OPA-LOCKA, FL: Class Action Over Water Overbilling Ongoing
OPEN TEXT: Suit v. Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition Ongoing
ORGAIN INC: Hamilton Sues Over Misleading Almondmilk Drink Labels
OTB ACQUISITION: Samuels Sues in Arkansas Over Violations of FLSA
PASSON & PASSON: Sierra Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
PERRIGO CO: Court Certifies All Classes in Roofer Suit
PORTOLA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of March 16 Deadline
PORTOLA PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Notes of March 16 Deadline
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces McCutcheon Securities Suit in Cal.
PRIMO WATER: Badder Balks at Cott Holdings Merger Deal
PRODUCERS SERVICE: Casarez Granted Partial Summary Judgment
PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: Faces Allen Employment Suit in Calif.
PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
REALTY SHARES: Faces Raudonis Suit Over Sale of Debt Securities
RHMT LLC: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging Violation of ADA
SAVE MART: Faces Rooney Suit in California Over Employment Issues
SCORES HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Santos de Oliveira Suit Pending
SEBA ABODE: Violates FLSA Over Pay Deduction Scheme, Wofford Says
SECOND CHANCE: Disgruntled Donor's Class Action Dismissed
SOUTHERN STAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lee Claims
SQS LA LLC: Underpays Servers, Hutchinson Suit Alleges
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Dismisses Count III in Mahdi's Complaint
STAR GROUP: Accord in Donnenfeld Suit Wins Preliminary Approval
STELLAR PARTNERS: Faces Parker FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports
STEVENS TANKER: Henson Sues Over Violations of FLSA and WARN Act
SUNNY RIDGE: Harrison Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SWEET HOME: Fails to Pay Contractually Owed Wages, Trotman Claims
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bigelow Suit Moved from M.D. Florida to E.D.N.C.
TADASHI SHOJI: Cooks Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
TD AMERITRADE: Settlement in Ciuffitelli Class Suit Approved
TIPP DISTRIBUTORS: Misrepresents Low Sugar Iced Tea, Taylor Says
TOTAL QUALITY: Spisak Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Ohio
UNIFIN INC: Bland Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Expert Witnesses in Ramirez vs. US ICE
UNITED STATES: Judge Terminates Asylum-Seeker's Deportation Case
UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Class Action Over Airport Cash Seizures
USABLE CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Simmons Says
VALET LIVING: Faces Trujillo Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
VISA INC: 2018 Amended Settlement Agreement Wins Final Approval
VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Nuts for Candy Class Action
ZARA USA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Sedaghatpour Claims
[*] Mayer Brown Attorneys Tackle WLF's Expert Testimony Monograph
[*] Reformers Want Disclosure of 3rd-Party MDL Funding
[*] Trump Admin. Steps Up Push to Sway Judges in Antitrust Cases
*********
500.COM LIMITED: Block and Leviton File Class Action in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------
Inkedin reports that a group of 500.com investors have filed a
class action lawsuit against the Chinese sports lottery company
amid claims that it may have committed securities fraud in an
attempt to bribe a prominent Japanese lawmaker.
Massachusetts law firm Block and Leviton LLC announced through an
official press release on Jan. 16 that it is to bring an action
before the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey that could see shareholders in the betting company listed in
New York compensated for their consequent losses.
Shenzhen-headquartered 500.com was reportedly interested in
obtaining a licence to build and run an integrated casino resort on
the Hokkaido or Okinawa Japanese Islands. To help smooth its
course, the company is reported to have secretly paid bribes
totalling up to 7.2 million yen ($65,370) to Tsukasa Akimoto, the
nation's Deputy Minister of Land, Housing, Transport and Tourism.
Block and Leviton LLC clarified that this plan was thrown into the
public spotlight late in December when the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutor's Office arrested and charged Akimoto, a 48-year-old.
This explained that this later also contributed to similar charges
against 500.com advisors Katsunori Nakazato and Masahiko Konno as
well as former company executive Zheng Xi.
To make matters worse, the year ended with Xudong Chen resigning as
Chairman for 500.com while the Chief Executive Officer of the
company, Zhengming Pan, soon announced that he would temporarily
step down to conduct a comprehensive internal investigation into
the whole affair.
As a result of all this, the law firm based in Boston argues that
the share price at 500.com fell by 12 percent in just one day and
that it now hopes to secure compensation for any of the
out–of-pocket investors of the defendant.
Mark Delaney, an attorney at Block and Leviton LLP, used the press
release to say that 500.com had 'concealed from investors that its
executives were bribing Japanese lawmakers' and that he is now
interested in hearing from anyone who bought shares in the company
between April 2018 and the end of last year.
"These allegations of corruption are very serious and our
investigation will focus on whether illegal activity occurred that
resulted in investor losses," read the statement. [GN]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Transfer of King Drug Case to N.D. Ga. Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum denying Defendants' Motion to
Transfer Venue in the case captioned KING DRUG CO. OF FLORENCE, et
al. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al. Civil Action No. 19-3565. (E.D.
Pa.)
Before the court was the motion of defendants to transfer venue.
This is a civil antitrust action alleging anticompetitive conduct
by defendants related to a pharmaceutical product, AndroGel.
Plaintiffs are wholesalers which allege they were denied the
opportunity to purchase lower-priced generic versions of AndroGel
due to the alleged anticompetitive conduct and thereby suffered
overcharges.
Defendants moved to transfer venue of this action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
Section 1404(a) provides in relevant part:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought or to
any district or division to which all parties have consented.
Defendants have cited additional reasons why transfer is warranted
here. First, defendants assert that transfer is mandated under In
re Fine Paper Litigation, 632 F.2d 1081 (3d Cir. 1980).
In Fine Paper, our Court of Appeals declared that if a suit is
brought by either an assignor or partial assignee, the obligor
antitrust defendant has the option of requiring joinder of the
necessary parties or resorting to interpleader. Thus, unless the
defendant has consented, the partial assignee may not maintain the
original suit unless all parties having the collective right to the
entire claim are joined in the proceeding. Consequently, the Court
of Appeals prohibited an assignee from exercising its right to opt
out of a class action because its assignor was in the class.
Defendants reason that, under Fine Paper, transfer is necessary to
consolidate the claims of each assignor and its assignee in a
single forum. Fine Paper, however, merely stands for the
proposition that a partial assignee is precluded from opting out of
an antitrust class post-certification where the assignor is a
member of that class.
It does not control here where there is no class action certified.
Moreover, at least ten out of the fourteen plaintiffs here have not
assigned any claims to another entity. Regardless, the four
plaintiffs that have assigned portions of their claims to certain
retailers proceeding in the Georgia action have since settled those
actions. Accordingly, the Appellate Court concludes that Fine Paper
does not require transfer under the circumstances presented here.
Defendants further assert that the first-filed doctrine dictates
transfer to the Northern District of Georgia. The first-filed rule
requires, absent extraordinary circumstances, that cases sharing
substantially similar subject matter and subject to concurrent
federal jurisdiction be decided by the court where the litigation
was first filed. The rationale for the rule is the desire for sound
judicial administration and comity among federal courts of equal
stature as well as the desire to avoid the vexation of multiple
litigations covering the same subject matter. It is not a hard and
fast rule but rather a discretionary doctrine permitting the court
to do what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the
law, and directed by the reason and conscience of the judge to a
just result.
The present action was filed by different plaintiffs and concerns
additional claims which are not present in the actions in Georgia.
In addition, plaintiffs have named several entities which are not
defendants in the Georgia actions. Thus, the action pending here is
not truly duplicative of those in Georgia. Given the differences
between the two actions, the District Court declines to transfer
this action to the Northern District of Georgia based on the
first-filed doctrine.
Against this backdrop, the motion of defendants to transfer venue
to the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a) will be denied, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 6, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wgd998n from Leagle.com.
KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP.,
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORP., BELLCO DRUG CO., H.D. SMITH, LLC.,
CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, L.L.C, MCKESSON
CORPORATION, J M SMITH CORPORATION, agent of D/B/A SMITH DRUG
COMPANY, BURLINGTON DRUG COMPANY, INC., THE NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL
WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, DAKOTA DRUG INC. & VALUE DRUG COMPANY,
Plaintiffs, represented by JOSEPH OPPER -
jopper@garwingerstein.com - GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP, ANDREW
WILLIAM KELLY , ODOM & DES ROCHES LLP, 650 Poydras St #2020, New
Orleans, LA 70130, BRUCE E. GERSTEIN - bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
- GARWIN GERSTEIN AND FISHER LLP, CHRIS LETTER , ODOM & DESROCHES,
DAN CHIOREAN , ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC, 650 Poydras St #2020, New
Orleans, LA 70130, ELENA K. CHAN - echan@garwingerstein.com -
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP, ELLEN T. NOTEWARE - enoteware@bm.net
- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, NICHOLAS URBAN - nurban@bm.net - BERGER
MONTAGUE PC & DAVID F. SORENSEN - dsorensen@bm.net - BERGER
MONTAGUE PC.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE PRODUCTS LLC., agent of
F/K/A ABBOTT PRODUCTS, INC, F/K/A SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. &
UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS LLC., agent of F/K/A UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Defendants, represented by PAUL H. SAINT-ANTOINE -
paul.saint-antoine dbr.com - DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH LLP, JEFFREY
I. WEINBERGER - jeffrey.weinberger@mto.com - MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
LLP, JENNIFER PIKE - jennifer.pike@dbr.com - DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH, JOHN S. YI - john.yi@dbr.com - DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP,
JUSTIN P. RAPHAEL - Justin.Raphael@mto.com - MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSEN
LLP, KYLE W. MACH - kyle.mach@mto.com - MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP,
ROHIT K. SINGLA - Rohit.Singla@mto.com - MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSEN LLP
& STUART N. SENATOR -Stuart.Senator@mto.com - MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
LLP.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles California Labor Class Action for $5.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Palattella, writing for GoErie, reports that the apparent low
bidder, ABM, has settled multiple cases, including $110 million in
California class-action suit.
ABM Industries Inc., which wants to take over the Erie School
District's custodial services, is an enormous Fortune 500 company,
with hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide and $6.4 billion
in annual revenue.
ABM has also been involved in several big recent legal cases,
including one that ended with a $110 million settlement in 2017 in
a federal class-action suit over wage and hour claims involving
security guards in California.
In another case, ABM in 2010 paid $5.8 million to settle what the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission called "an
egregious sexual harassment lawsuit" that the EEOC filed against
ABM in 2007. The case involved 21 Hispanic women who worked for ABM
as janitors in California.
Most recently, in September, ABM agreed to pay $5.4 million to
settle a federal class-action lawsuit, also filed in California,
that claimed ABM violated federal labor laws by requiring 34,000
janitorial employees to use their personal cellphones for work
without reimbursement.
Overall, ABM since 2010 has paid more than $150 million related to
legal claims, with the bulk of the cases related to workplace
issues, according to Good Jobs First, a website that tracks
violations and other legal issues against corporations. The website
catalogs public documents related to the claims.
As it reviews whether to outsource janitorial services in one of
its biggest undertakings of its kind locally, the Erie School
District is reviewing ABM's legal issues, Erie schools
Superintendent Brian Polito said.
"We are going to take all that into consideration," Polito said in
an interview.
ABM was the apparent lower bidder for the custodial outsourcing,
for which only one other company made an offer in response to the
district's request for proposal. The 11,000-student Erie School
District opened the bids on Jan. 6 and must consider custodial
outsourcing to save money under its state-mandated financial
improvement plan.
Polito said a rebid is possible but that the district will evaluate
ABM's proposal as it also continues to negotiate with the labor
unions for the district's custodians and custodial supervisors.
Polito said he still hopes that the district can work out a deal
with the unions to keep the jobs in-house while cutting costs.
In a statement in response to further questions from the Erie
Times-News on ABM's legal issues, the school district said: "Erie's
Public Schools performs appropriate levels of due diligence on all
potential contractors and is aware of the information publicly
available regarding lawsuits, settlements and claims involving ABM.
We are continuing to evaluate that information and ABM's response
as part of our RFP process."
ABM would save the Erie School District $1.8 million to $2.2
million in annual costs for custodians and custodial supervisors,
according to the range the company presented in its bid. ABM's
proposal would trim by 13 the district's 86 full-time custodial
positions, composed of 63 custodians, 22 custodial supervisors and
one director of custodial services.
The Erie School Board, in following the financial-improvement plan,
must vote in May on whether to outsource custodial services or keep
the services in-house and make cuts to save about $1 million. The
district must abide by the plan as a condition of its receipt,
starting in 2018, of $14 million in additional annual state aid to
stay solvent. The School Board was set to hold a public hearing on
outsourcing, with no voting, on Wednesday, Jan. 22, at 5 p.m. at
East Middle School.
As part of its bid, ABM was required to submit to the school
district "information concerning any violation of federal or state
law or regulation," according to the district's request for
proposal. In response to the requirement, ABM submitted the
following statement, which the Erie Times-News obtained from the
school district through a request under the state's Right-to-Know
Law. ABM did not object to its release, the district said.
"ABM and its subsidiaries employ over 130,000 employees in the
United States and have substantial business operations throughout
the country generating over $6 billion in annual revenue,"
according to submission. "As such, at any given time, ABM is
involved in a number of lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident
to the operation of our business, including those pertaining to
labor and employment, contracts, personal injury and other
matters.
"These matters are handled in the normal course of business by
legal and risk management professionals employed by ABM, and the
vast majority of these matters are resolved without incident or
settled," according to the submission. "None of these matters are
significant enough to jeopardize the financial condition of the
company or have any impact on ABM's ability to provide timely,
professional and workmanlike services to any of our customers."
The Erie Times-News asked the school district whether ABM's
submission of information was adequate under the bid requirements.
The district referred to a committee it has formed to review the
custodial bids. The committee includes district administrators and
representatives of the affected labor unions.
"The district's selection committee has not yet met to review the
proposals, "according to the district's statement. "Erie's Public
Schools continues to do due diligence in reviewing the bids to
determine the merits of each proposal."
ABM, based in New York City and with an office near Philadelphia,
did not respond to a request for comment about the settlements and
other legal issues. Founded in 1909 as American Building
Maintenance, ABM is one of the largest maintenance companies in the
United States.
The $110 million settlement, the largest of the cases involving
ABM, concerns ABM's security business, which it sold in 2015, two
years before the case ended. The employees in the class-action suit
claimed ABM failed to give uninterrupted rest breaks to nearly
15,000 security guards in California. The case started in 2005.
The settlement ended a lengthy court fight in which the
interpretation of break rules was at issue. The trial court ruled
for the plaintiffs; an appeals court ruled for ABM, reversing the
trial court; and the California Supreme Court ruled for the
plaintiffs by reversing the appeals court and affirming the ruling
of the trial court.
The California Supreme Court found that "California law requires
employers to relieve their employees of all work-related duties and
employer control during 10-minute rest periods," according to court
documents.
In February 2017, when the $110 million settlement was announced,
ABM CEO Scott Salmirs said in a statement: "While we disagree with
the decision of the California Supreme Court, we are pleased to
have reached a resolution in these longstanding legal matters
related to our previously-held Security business. We remain excited
about our 2020 Vision and continue to be on track with our long
term objectives."
For the Erie School District custodial work, the only external
competition for ABM came from the other bidder, Metz Environmental
Services of Dallas, Pennsylvania, near Wilkes-Barre. But Metz's
plan for custodial services would not save money. It would cost the
school district an additional $909,000 a year, according to
information Polito has presented to the School Board.
The total cost for all the Erie School District's full-time
custodial employees, which include supervisors, is about $5.4
million a year, according to the district. Metz's plan, according
to its bid, would cost the district $6.2 million a year and add six
custodial jobs. ABM's proposal would cost the district $3.2 million
to $3.6 million a year, leading to the projected savings of $1.8
million to $2.2 million. [GN]
AK STEEL: Franchi Suit Balks at Merger Deal With Cleveland-Cliffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION, RALPH S. MICHAEL, III,
DENNIS C. CUNEO, SHERI H. EDISON, MARK G. ESSIG, WILLIAM K. GERBER,
GREGORY B. KENNY, ROGER K. NEWPORT, DWAYNE A. WILSON, VICENTE
WRIGHT, ARLENE M. YOCUM, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., and PEPPER MERGER
SUB INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00078-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 17, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 stemming from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which AK
Steel will be acquired by Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Pepper Merger
Sub.
On December 2, 2019, AK Steel's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Cleveland-Cliffs. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, AK
Steel's stockholders will receive 0.40 shares of Parent common
stock for each share of AK Steel common stock they own.
On January 8, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.
The Plaintiff, who owns AK Steel common stock, asserts that the
disclosure of the Company's projected financial information is
material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project
the future financial performance of a company, and allows
stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed
by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness
opinion.
AK Steel produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless, and electrical
steel products, primarily for the automotive, infrastructure and
manufacturing, including electrical power, and distributors and
converters markets. Through its subsidiaries, the company also
provides customer solutions with carbon and stainless steel tubing
products, hot- and cold-stamped components, and die design and
tooling. The Individual Defendants are directors of the
company.[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
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces Joseph FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldous & Associates,
PLLC. The case is styled as Judeline S. Joseph, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aldous & Associates,
PLLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00732 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Aldous & Associates is a law firm that specializes in fitness
industry 90 day past due consumer collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Rottenberg FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Esther Rottenberg, Doris Encarnado,
Sandy Macius, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00708
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Allied Interstate LLC is a debt collection agency that provides
financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable,
customer retention, and debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
ALTA MESA: Leaseholders' Royalties Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Barker, writing for the Idaho Statesman, reports that Snake
River Oil and Gas Group has bought controlling interest of the
wells and production facilities in Payette County.
The company has had a minority interest in the Idaho fields,
controlled first by Alta Mesa Idaho and its successor High Mesa,
which took over in 2018 when Alta Mesa declared bankruptcy. Snake
River brought in new investors and took a 55% interest when it
closed Dec. 24.
Sun Valley's Richard Brown, who heads the group, said he wants to
reset the relationship with Idaho, which has been troubled for the
past six years over royalty payments, environmental concerns and
disputes with its neighbors.
"I want to put the past behind us," said Brown, who began buying
oil and gas leases in southwest Idaho shortly after natural gas was
discovered in 2010.
The transition is expected to take place over the next 10 days,
Brown said in a phone call on Jan. 16.
Snake River has six wells producing natural gas and condensate, a
light crude oil and other liquids in the Willow Creek drainage
northeast of Payette. Another four wells, including the state's
only oil well, have been shut-in and are no longer producing.
Two wells drilled in Fruitland are shut-in awaiting the building of
a pipeline to a processing plant in the Willow drainage. Work on
the pipeline has begun, Brown said. That will be Snake River's
focus for 2020 as well as "getting this whole project in a
profitable state."
Oil and gas in southwest IdahoOver the past decade Alta Mesa and
its investors have spent $160 million on the southwest Idaho
project, including the Willow Creek Gathering Facility and the
Highway 30 dehydration plant, Brown said. Snake River, a subsidiary
of Weiser-Brown, the Arkansas-based company he owns with Chris
Weiser, hopes to buy out the remaining High Mesa investors by the
end of this year.
Once the company gets the Fruitland area into full production, it
hopes to do more 3-D geophysical exploration to expand its drilling
in the area, Brown said.
But it plans to allow its leases in the Eagle area to lapse over
the next 12 to 24 months.
Brown's ability to get investors with long expertise in the
petroleum industry shows the potential for growth in the oil and
gas industry here, Brown said.
"There's definitely more oil and gas here," he said. "This new
investment group saw the potential."
Much of the criticism of Alta Mesa was that it was not forthcoming
with information about its business, its wells or the geology of
the field. This made it hard for competitors to raise capital to
drill on the lands they controlled.
Brown said he welcomes competition because it will help reduce
exploration costs and support the added infrastructure, such as
pipelines.
"I want to return to transparency," Brown said.
Leaseholders in Idaho shorted by Alta Mesa
The state of Idaho completed an audit of four wells, which included
state land leases, in 2019 and found that Alta Mesa underpaid them
$50,361.57 from 2015 through 2018. Alta Mesa paid the state back in
2019.
State regulators discovered additional underpayments to other
royalty property owners in an investigation report released in May
2019.
Investigators blamed the discrepancy on a "systematic error in an
equation used in some steps of the allocation process."
Soon after the report came out, a class-action complaint was filed
by nine Idahoans who signed leases with Alta Mesa. The complaint
alleges Alta Mesa committed fraud and breached the leases by
underpaying royalties to the leaseholders on the natural gas it
harvested from their property.
The complaint alleges Alta Mesa "manipulated royalty accounting
methods by calculating royalty on a net price rather than a gross
price, by taking midstream deductions from royalty that the oil and
gas leases do not expressly authorize, by failing to account for
and pay royalties on all products produced, used, or sold, and by
engaging in transactions with affiliates which reduced royalty paid
…"
The company had backed out of mediation, but Brown said they would
return to mediation in February and wanted to get the issues
settled.
"I don't want to fight any more," he said.
Randy and Thana Kauffmann, two of the leaseholders in the class
action suit, said they could not comment on the lawsuit or
mediation. But the oil well on their land is separate, and they
hope Brown will resolve the discrepancies found there.
"I told him to call us when he's ready to talk, "Thana Kauffman
said.
Fruitland remains restless Brown also will have to work through a
forced pooling or integration process that has been caught up in
court and administrative processes surrounding one of its Fruitland
wells. The process is designed to ensure all of a unit's
mineral-right holders are fairly compensated.
Initially the company sought a unit size of 640 acres, but the
state ruling was challenged successfully in federal court by
landowners and the state had to start over. This time the company
is arguing for a unit only 160 acres.
A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Julie Fugate, a retired speech therapist, was one of the landowners
included in the larger area. She joined Citizens Allied for
Integrity and Accountability, an Idaho group organized to push
health, safety and property-rights issues raised by oil and gas
development. The group successfully pushed the Fruitland City
Council to pass an ordinance for a drilling setback to protect
residents and property values.
She remains skeptical about the company even though Alta Mesa no
longer has control.
"We need to remember (Brown) is the one who brought Alta Mesa to
Idaho," Fugate said. [GN]
ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Sues Alleging Violations of Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabby Klein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., HOWARD A. WILLARD III, and WILLIAM
F. GIFFORD, JR., Case No. 3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7,
2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Company and certain
of its top officials' violations of federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Altria securities between December 20, 2018, and September
24, 2019, both dates inclusive.
On December 20, 2018, during pre-market hours, Altria issued a
press release announcing that it had signed and closed a $12.8
billion investment in JUUL Labs, Inc., the purported U.S. leader in
electronic vapor (colloquially called "e-vapor") products,
including e cigarettes. According to the December 2018 Press
Release, the service agreements related to the transaction would
accelerate JUUL's mission to switch adult smokers to e-vapor
products. Altria's investment represented a 35% economic interest
in JUUL, valuing the company at $38 billion, with JUUL purportedly
remaining fully independent.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence
into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35%
stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently failed to inform
investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's
products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and
its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting
public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on
e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's
investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the
Company's reputation and operations; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading.
On April 3, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced
its investigation into nearly three dozen cases of people suffering
from seizures after "vaping" (the act of consuming e-vapor products
through inhalation). Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA said it
received thirty-five reports of people, especially children and
young adults, experiencing seizures after using e-cigarettes.
On this news, Altria's stock price fell $2.71 per share, or 4.78%,
to close at $53.98 per share on April 3, 2019. Then, on August 29,
2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission was investigating whether JUUL used influencers and
other marketing practices to appeal e-cigarettes to minors. On this
news, Altria's stock price fell $1.60 per share, or 3.49%, to close
at $44.25 per share on August 29, 2019.
On September 25, 2019, Altria issued a press release announcing
that Philip Morris had called off discussions of a $200 billion
merger with Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry and the
Company's 35% stake in market leader JUUL, which had announced the
same day that it was the subject of another federal investigation.
JUUL also announced its CEO would step down and the firm would stop
all advertising in the U.S.
On this news, Altria's stock price fell an additional $0.17 per
share, or 0.42%, to close at $40.56 per share on September 25,
2019--a total loss of $0.32 per share, or 0.78%, since closing at
$40.88 per share two trading days earlier on September 23, 2019.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Altria securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Altria manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and
wine in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
AMALIE OIL: Settles XCEL Motor Oil Class Action in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, CarComplaints.com, reports that an XCEL motor oil
class action lawsuit settlement has been reached after consumers
accused the Amalie Oil Company of selling obsolete motor oil not
fit for vehicle engines built after 1930.
The XCEL motor oil class action includes consumers in the U.S. who
purchased, for personal use (not for resale), these Premium engine
oils between December 1, 2014, and October 11, 2019:
-- SAE 30
-- SAE 40
-- SAE 50
-- SAE 10w-30
-- SAE 10w-40
-- SAE 15w-40
-- SAE 20w-50
The class action lawsuit claims XCEL Premium motor oil is
considered obsolete by the American Petroleum Institute (API)
because it is a non-detergent motor oil. The motor oil lawsuit
alleges the Premium oil has an API-SA rating which is useless and
destructive for engines manufactured after 1930.
The class action alleges consumers are misled by XCEL Premium
labels which allegedly lead people to believe the motor oil is safe
to use in today's engines. And while the Amalie Oil Company denies
wrongdoing, consumers who purchased the oil claim the products are
worthless and a waste of money.
According to the proposed XCEL settlement, the most a customer will
be refunded is $20 even if they have receipts indicating numerous
purchases.
For a consumer who submits a valid claim form with proof of motor
oil purchase, Amalie will refund the amount paid, up to $5 per
quart of XCEL Premium motor oil for up to four quarts, or a total
of up to $20.
A consumer who files a valid claim form without proof of purchase
will be refunded $2 per quart of motor oil, up to three quarts, or
a total of up to $6.
Only one payment will be paid per household, and a consumer may
claim a refund either with proof of purchase or without it, but not
both.
According to the settlement agreement, the oil company will also
makes changes to its labeling.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive $2 million.
The XCEL motor oil class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Brandon
Opalka, et al., v. Amalie AOC LTD.
The plaintiff is represented by Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Kanner & Whiteley, and the Casey Law Firm. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: CR-V Cars Have Flawed Sensing System, Ward Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phylistene Ward, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00511 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants' 2016-2019 Honda CR-V vehicles are equipped with
defective sensing system.
Honda Sensing relies on a combination of radar sensors, cameras,
and computers to avoid collisions by sensing the speeds and
distances of vehicles and objects surrounding the Honda vehicle,
and automatically applies brakes if the system detects a need to do
so. Specifically, Honda Sensing includes a "Collision Mitigation
Braking System," a "Road Departure Mitigation System," "Adaptive
Cruise Control with Low-Speed Follow," "Lane Keeping Assist
System," and a "Cross Traffic Monitor," all of which are intended
to operate together to decrease the likelihood or severity of
automotive accidents.
However, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and other consumers, Honda
Sensing and its associated systems suffer from a major safety flaw:
they repeatedly detect "false positives" or "false alarms" and
engage safety protocols without warning, such as (1) abruptly
applying brakes and decreasing vehicle speeds on the highway
without warning; (2) displaying numerous warning messages to
drivers as a false indication of a hazard; and (3) instructing
drivers to immediately apply brakes when there is no obstruction or
hazard present, according to the complaint.
Honda Sensing is standard equipment on EX, EX-L and Touring Honda
CR-V for model years 2016-2019, each of which were sold with the
same Defect in the Honda Sensing system.
The Plaintiff leases a 2019 Honda CR-V EX, which she obtained from
Community Honda of Orland Park, an authorized dealership of Honda.
She alleges that she has repeatedly suffered from the Defect in her
2019 Honda CR-V EX, and has repeatedly sought Honda's assistance in
repairing the Defect, to no avail.
Honda manufactures, markets, and distributes mass-produced
automobiles in the United States under the Honda brand name.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 394 0888
E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com
- and -
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 803-1578
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Cuyohoga and Summit Counties Settle for $66.7MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
paid $66.7 million in December 2019 to Cuyahoga and Summit counties
in Ohio to settle all claims brought by the two counties against
the company in the first track of the MDL related to Opioid.
On October 21, 2019, the Company announced an agreement in
principle with Cuyahoga and Summit counties to settle all claims
brought by the two counties against the Company in the first track
of the MDL. All claims against the Company were dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the settlement. Pursuant to this settlement,
the Company made a payment of $66.7 million in December 2019.
A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other
governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico,
as well as several states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in
various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical
wholesale distributors (including the Company and certain
subsidiaries, such as AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC")
and H.D. Smith), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail chains,
medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of
prescription opioid pain medications.
Other lawsuits regarding the distribution of prescription opioid
pain medications have been filed by: third-party payors and similar
entities; hospitals; hospital groups; and individuals, including
cases styled as putative class actions.
The lawsuits, which have been and continue to be filed in federal,
state, and other courts, generally allege violations of controlled
substance laws and various other statutes as well as common law
claims, including negligence, public nuisance, and unjust
enrichment, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages.
An initial group of cases was consolidated for Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") proceedings before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Court") in December
2017. Additional cases have been, and will likely continue to be,
transferred to the MDL.
Further, in June 2018, the Court granted a motion permitting the
United States, through the DOJ, to participate in settlement
discussions and as a friend of the Court by providing information
to facilitate non-monetary remedies.
In April 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation
track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and
trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions. On December 31, 2018,
the Court issued an order selecting two additional cases for a
second bellwether discovery and trial track.
In November 2019 and January 2020, the Court filed Suggestions of
Remand with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that, if
granted, would result in four cases, including the two additional
bellwether cases, being transferred from the MDL back to federal
courts in California, Oklahoma, and West Virginia for the
completion of discovery, motion practice, and trial.
The two West Virginia cases have now been remanded from the MDL to
federal court in West Virginia. Certain defendants, including ABDC,
have opposed the Suggestions of Remand for the California and
Oklahoma cases. The timing of discovery, motion practice, and
trials for these four cases has not yet been determined.
On October 21, 2019, the Company announced an agreement in
principle with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, to settle
all claims brought by the two counties against the Company in the
first track of the MDL. All claims against the Company were
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement. Pursuant to
this settlement, the Company made a payment of $66.7 million in
December 2019. The Company had previously recorded a charge of
$66.7 million in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019 within Employee Severance, Litigation and Other
in its Statement of Operations and in Accrued Expenses and Other on
the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The Court has continued to oversee court-ordered settlement
discussions with attorneys for the plaintiffs and certain states
that it instituted at the beginning of the MDL proceedings. On
October 21, 2019, the Attorneys General for North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas announced certain proposed
settlement terms intended to provide a potential framework for a
global resolution of the MDL and other related state court
litigation, including cases currently filed and that could be
filed.
The attorneys general's announcement outlined that the largest U.S.
pharmaceutical distributors would be expected to pay an aggregate
amount of up to $18.0 billion over 18 years, of which the Company's
portion would be 31.0%, in addition to the development and
participation in a program for free or rebated distribution of
opioid-abuse medications for a period of 10 years and the
implementation of industry-wide changes to be specified to
controlled substance anti-diversion programs.
The Company is currently engaged in discussions that include the
four attorneys general and other parties with the objective of
reaching potential terms for a global resolution. The Company is
also engaged in related discussions with plaintiffs' lawyers
representing local governments and other parties with the same goal
of reaching a global resolution with all parties.
AmerisourceBergen said, "If agreed, the potential terms for a
global resolution would then need to be presented to numerous other
states and local governments, and a significant number of such
jurisdictions would need to accept the proposed terms in order to
achieve an agreement in principle that would provide the finality
that the Company requires from a global resolution. Given the large
number of parties involved, the complexity and difficulty of the
underlying issues, and the resulting uncertainty of achieving a
potential global resolution, the Company continues to litigate and
prepare for trial in the cases pending in the MDL as well as in
state courts where lawsuits have been filed, and intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in all such cases. A liability
associated with a global resolution has not been recognized as of
December 31, 2019, since the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of settlement discussions with the states and local
governments that will need to participate and, therefore, a global
resolution cannot be considered probable. Furthermore, significant
uncertainty remains with regard to whether such matters will
proceed to trial, and, given the inherent uncertainty related to
such litigation, the Company is not in a position to assess the
likely outcome, and therefore unable to estimate the range of
possible loss."
AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Faces Generic Drug Price Fixing-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is facing a putative class action suit initiated by Reliable
Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower
Medical Center, over alleged price-fixing, market allocation and
bid rigging of generic drugs.
In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company and other drug
distributors.
The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.
The complaint alleges that the Company and other drug distributors
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs.
The complaint has not yet been served on the Company.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.
AMMA PRIVATE: Bannister Law Investigates Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bannister Law is currently investigating a class action against a
number of accounting firms and AMMA Private Equity Pty Ltd.
Guvera Limited, a music streaming service company, engaged a
private equity company AMMA Private Equity Pty Ltd. From 2009 to
2016, AMMA raised $185.3 million on behalf of Guvera.
Initial investigations show that accountants were providing advice
to their clients on the prospects of this investment.
Mr Mark Cohen, a former shareholder said, "I am a simple investor
and lost $30,000 of my superannuation savings on the poor advice of
my accountants".
"We are investigating as to how the money was raised and any advice
provided to consumers when considering the investment" said Charles
Bannister of Bannister Law.
If you have invested in Guvera Limited register your details
below:
What is a class action?
Class actions are legal proceedings brought by one person on behalf
of a group. Rather than each person pursuing a claim separately, a
class action streamlines the process, enabling a dispute involving
large numbers of people to be resolved through a single case.
Bannister Law fights for the legal rights of Australian consumers.
Bannister Law is also running several of Australia's most high
profile and significant class actions on behalf of consumers,
including: the Volkswagen emissions class action, Ford class
action, Dick Smith shareholders class action. Bannister Law also
ran and resolved the class action against the makers of Nurofen.
[GN]
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tipton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Tipton, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Case No.
4:20-cv-00439 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying proper
overtime wages.
The Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more than forty hours
in a workweek without overtime compensation, according to the
complaint. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt from
overtime under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's conduct violates the
FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all
hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector from October
2017 through March 2018.
Anadarko was one of the largest independent oil and gas exploration
and production companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Phone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
ANTHOM LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHOM LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00206 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://shopanthom.com -- is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
ARSTRAT LLC: Holt Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00733
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ARstrat, LLC is a third-party collection agency based in Texas that
specializes in collecting delinquent healthcare bills.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Sues Over Seroquel XR Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.; ASTRAZENECA UK
LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01096 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to monopolize the market for
Seroquel XR, which is used for treating bipolar disorder,
depression and schizophrenia.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Class of
Direct Purchasers of Seroquel XR from the Defendants during the
period from September 29, 2011, through the present.
The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants'
anticompetitive scheme, it and Members of the Direct Purchaser
Class paid more for Seroquel XR than they otherwise would have paid
in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, which violates
the federal antitrust laws, in particular Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.
The Defendants' unlawful scheme consisted of, among other things,
AstraZeneca's entering into agreements with Handa and Accord
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. not to compete in the market for Seroquel XR
and AB-rated generic equivalents, and Handa's subsequent assignment
of the unlawful agreement to Par, which performed the agreement,
sold AB-rated generic Seroquel XR at supracompetitive prices, and
shared the unlawful gains with Handa, according to the complaint.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other Direct Purchasers were
deprived of a competitive market for Seroquel XR.
Plaintiff KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the
Northeast under the name Kinney Drugs, Inc.
The Defendants manufactured, sold, and/or shipped Seroquel XR in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce, which
included sales of Seroquel XR in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
Karen S. Halbert, Esq.
Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
William R. Olson, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Phone: (501) 821-5575
Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
williamolson@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 1910
Phone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
AUSTRALIA: Sports Clubs May Bring Class Action Over Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that clubs which
missed out on federal funding under the $100 million sports program
overseen by Bridget McKenzie could bring court cases to overturn
the former sports minister's decisions, lawyers from two plaintiff
firms have said.
Slater and Gordon is investigating the possibility of a class
action and Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer, Josh Bornstein, has
offered to work pro bono for clubs which were denied funding under
a program the audit office found was targeted at marginal seats.
Both cite the fact the Australian National Audit Office report said
it is "not evident to the ANAO what the legal authority was" for
McKenzie to approve grants.
McKenzie has defended her handling of the program, insisting that
all projects granted funding were eligible and "no rules were
broken".
Bornstein told Guardian Australia "it looks like the minister
didn't have the power to approve grants [and] the minister
effectively usurped the role of Sports Australia . . . they were
just steam-rolled".
"That gives rise to question whether clubs can go to court and
quash the grants that have been approved and ensure the process is
conducted with integrity, "he said.
Bornstein said he was "interested in conducting" a test case or
class action on a pro bono basis, suggesting there would be "no
shortage of volunteers from the legal community" to assemble a
crack team.
"Ideally the sorts of sporting club I'm looking for is someone who
was entitled to the grant on merit and lost out on as a result of
the minister's intervention."
Sports clubs that missed out in $100m grants program could bring
class action
Slater and Gordon class actions practice group leader, Andrew
Baker, said that "every dollar that went to a club whose
application should have been unsuccessful is a dollar that didn't
end up with a club that Sport Australia had identified and
recommended for funding in the course of proper processes".
"These community organisations, clubs and groups have lost out
because it appears public funds were used for political gain," he
said in a statement.
Baker said the audit office report "raises serious questions about
the lawfulness of the conduct involved".
In a scathing report, the auditor general found that 70% of
projects approved by the minister in the second round in March 2019
were not recommended by Sport Australia, rising to 73% in the third
round in April 2019 after an extra $40m was tipped into the
program.
"A significant shortcoming was that, while the program guidelines
identified that the minister for sport would approve [community
sport infrastructure grant] funding, there are no records
evidencing that the minister was advised of the legal basis on
which the minister could undertake an approval role, and it is not
evident to the ANAO what the legal authority was," the ANAO report
said.
It noted that although the sports minister has a power to direct
Sports Australia "it was not used".
Labor leader Anthony Albanese, independent MP Zali Steggall and One
Nation leader Pauline Hanson have all called for McKenzie to resign
over the program.
A Senate inquiry is likely, as Labor has vowed to expose the
projects recommended by Sports Australia that were denied funding
by ministerial intervention and the Greens, Hanson and Centre
Alliance have offered to support an inquiry.
Scott Morrison is yet to comment on the scathing audit report,
after days of bad headlines including a $500,000 grant to Mosman
Rowing Club in Tony Abbott's seat of Warringah, Labor MP Graham
Perrett being excluded from the announcement of a grant he helped
lobby for, and a $500,000 sports grant in the rural Victorian seat
of Mallee a year and a half after it was first rejected when the
seat became hotly contested due to the resignation of Nationals MP
Andrew Broad. [GN]
AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's
violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.
In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.
The complaint asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act, was negligent and unjustly enriched itself in
connection with its collection, use and storage of biometric data
of employees of its clients who are residents of Illinois in
connection with certain services provided by ADP to clients in
Illinois.
The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.
All of these claims are still in their earliest stages and the
Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to these matters.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.
AXH HOLDINGS: Faces Cooks Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AXH Holdings, Inc.
The case is captioned as Richard Cooks, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. AXH Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-00522-RGK-SS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
AXH is a non-bank holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
7710 Hazard Center Drive, Suite E104
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (760) 822-1911
Facsimile: (760) 452-7560
E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Mandosia Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned GWENDOLYN E.
MANDOSIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 18-55484, (9th Cir.).
Plaintiff-Appellant Gwendolyn E. Mandosia, appealed from the
dismissal, without leave to amend, of her California common-law
fraud claim against Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, NA (Bank of
America).
Ms. Mandosia argues that the district court erred in concluding
that her claim was time-barred because under either the delayed
discovery or estoppel by fraudulent concealment defenses, her fraud
claim did not accrue until she learned about the fraud, i.e., when
she read a law firm advertisement posted by her attorneys.
The Ninth Circuit disagrees.
According to the Appellate Court, these defenses only delay accrual
until a plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause
of action. Given the sheer volume of missing or allegedly
incomplete applications, the number of home inspections charged to
her account and her receipt of a notice of foreclosure less than a
week after allegedly being approved for a loan modification plan,
Ms. Mandosia had or should have had inquiry notice of fraud by, at
the latest, the September 2014 foreclosure sale of her home.
She, thus, cannot benefit from either defense, rules the Ninth
Circuit.
Ms. Mandosia alternatively argues that the class action, equitably
tolled the statute of limitations under American Pipe &
Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).
The Appellate Court rejects this contention.
The Ninth Circuit held that American Pipe does not toll Mandosia's
common-law fraud claim because the plaintiffs in George brought
claims of promissory estoppel and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which would not have
placed Bank of America on notice of Ms. Mandosia's California
common-law fraud claim.
Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of Ms. Mandosia's claim
is AFFIRMED.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' January 6, 2020
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/tkfrp7j from
Leagle.com.
BETTERWELL LLC: Sued by Steele in California Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betterwell LLC. The
case is styled as Cristi Steele, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Betterwell LLC, a California limited
liability company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01047-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10,
2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Betterwell is a Pharmaceuticals wholesaler based in the United
Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Litvak, Esq.
DAPEER ROSENBLIT AND LITVAK LLP
11500 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1524
Phone: (310) 477-5575
Fax: (310) 477-7090
Email: wlitvak@drllaw.com
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
--------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that
the court overseeing the case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton
Holding Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.
On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.
The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.
The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.
Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably
estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss
associated with the lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not-for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
BROADBASE INC: Prasad Sues in California Over Employment Disputes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadbase, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Low Prasad, On behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Broadbase, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00273739-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 17,
2020).
The lawsuit involves employment-related issues.
Broadbase, Inc., doing business as Jiffy Lube, operates as an
automotive repair center. The Company offers radiation,
transmission, tire rotation, and brake services. Jiffy Lube serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Daniel Weaver, Esq.
WEAVER ATTORNEY
PO Box 6294
Albany, CA 94706-0294
Telephone: (510) 524-2355
E-mail: weaverattorney@gmail.com
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Lebovits Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Lebovits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-01116 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act arising from a non-compliant debt collection letter.
Prior to May 18, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to
Citibank, N.A. by the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Defendant Cavalry
SPV purportedly purchased the alleged debt. On May 18, 2019,
Defendant Cavalry Portfolio sent the Plaintiff a collection letter
regarding the alleged debt owed to Cavalry SPV I, LLC. The Letter
advises, inter alia, that Defendant Cavalry SPV I, LLC has
purchased the alleged debt and that Defendant Cavalry Portfolio
would be servicing same.
Although a collection letter may track the statutory language, as
is the case here, the Plaintiff asserts, "the collector
nevertheless violates the Act if it conveys that information in a
confusing or contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required
message with uncertainty."
The use of "Cavalry," is deceptive and misleading as the Plaintiff
would not know whether or not she should contact Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, or Cavalry SPV I, LLC to exercise her rights under
the G-Notice, according to the complaint. If Plaintiff contacts the
incorrect entity to exercise her rights under the G-Notice, she
effectively waives these rights. This is a failure by Defendant to
effectively convey the Plaintiff's rights and to whom she should
direct her dispute triggering those very same rights.
As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.
Cavalry Portfolio is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CHATTEM INC: Court Remands Icy Hot Applicator Suit to Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
the case captioned RUTHIE MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CHATTEM, INC. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06464-ODW(PJWx) (C.D. Cal.).
Martin moved to remand this action for lack of subject matter.
Martin filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior
Court against Chattem, Inc. and Sanofi, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated for pain, burns, and
inflammation from use of the product, Icy Hot Applicator. Martin
alleges eight causes of action: (1) Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) (2) False Advertising Law (FAL) (3) Unfair Competition Law
(UCL) (4) Breach of Express Warranty (5) Breach of Implied Warranty
of Merchantability (6) Unjust Enrichment (7) Strict Products
Liability and (8) Negligence.
Chattem removed the action to the California Central District
Court, pursuant to the CAFA.
Martin moved to remand arguing that Chattem's removal relies on
speculative violation rates to calculate the amount in controversy.
Martin contends that, as a result, Chattem has not established that
the amount in controversy is met and, thus, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.
Chattem opposes the Motion and argues that the amount in
controversy is satisfied because Chattem calculated the alleged
violation rates based on reasonable assumptions derived from the
Complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
CAFA allows for federal jurisdiction over a purported class action
when (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (2) at least
one putative class member is a citizen of a state different from
any defendant and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 members.
Chattem asserts that removal is proper because there are more than
100 putative class members, minimal diversity is satisfied, and the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Martin does not dispute
that the class is over 100 members or that the parties are
minimally diverse; instead, he argues that Chattem has not
established the amount in controversy.
Restitution Damages
Determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million is
contingent upon whether Chattem's calculations are reasonable.
Chattem, as the removing party, bears the burden to establish that
its asserted amount in controversy relies on reasonable
assumptions.
Chattem contends that the restitution damages alone exceeds $5
million. Chattem proffers as evidence the declaration of Brian
Nutter, the Senior Manager of Revenue and Working Capital at
Chattem, who stated that its sales to California retailers from May
2015 to July 2019 exceeds $5 million.
Martin disputes that she does not seek restitution, nevertheless,
any restitution the class seeks would be the amount class members
paid to Chattem to purchase its product. As Martin notes,
purchasers with the intent to resale Chattem's product do not fall
within the class as defined by the Complaint.
Therefore, without more, the value of sales Chattem earned from its
California retailers is irrelevant to the damages Martin and the
putative class seek in this suit.
The Court finds Chattem has ventured far from its evidence and the
allegations in the Complaint. Unwilling to join the journey, the
Court finds that Chattem has not satisfied its burden.
Compensatory Personal Injury Damages
Chattem alternatively asserts that the amount in controversy is met
by the personal injury damages of class members. In its
calculation, Chattem extrapolates from Martin's allegations of
hundreds of thousands of class members that there are at least
200,000 class members. Chattem further speculates that if each
class member was injured in the amount of $25, this cause of action
would satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
As Chattem provides no evidence to assume that every class member
will be physically injured from the use of its product and the
Complaint makes no such allegations, the Court declines to accept
Chattem's speculations and does not find the amount in controversy
satisfied.
Other Damages and Attorney's Fees
Finally, Chattem asserts that the injunctive relief would be a
substantial cost, attorney's fees would be 25% of the compensatory
damages ($1.2 million), and punitive damages would equal the
compensatory damages ($5 million). However, these estimates are
based on the unsubstantiated $5 million compensatory damages.
Accordingly, the Court does not consider these estimates in the
amount in controversy calculation.
Finding that Chattem has not provided a sound basis to determine
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over this case.
For this reason, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand and DENIES
as moot the motion to dismiss. The Court REMANDS this case to the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case
No. 19STCV03843 located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles,
California 90012.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w88qfk9 from Leagle.com.
Ruthie Martin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jerusalem F. Beligan -
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase LLP, Brian D. Chase -
bchase@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase LLP & Ian M. Silvers -
isilvers@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase LLP.
Chattem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Young -
christopher.young@dlapiper.com - DLA Piper US LLP, Michelle Chung -
Michelle.Chung@dlapiper.com - DLA Piper LLP US & Ruth N. Dapper -
ruth.dapper@us.dlapiper.com - DLA Piper LLP US.
CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of De Jesus Suit v. Policemen Fund Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division,
issued an Opinion affirming the circuit court of Cook County's
judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned STEVE DE JESUS, SABRINA DUDLEY JOHNSON, and MARIA
KOUZOUKAS, Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated
Chicago Police Officers and Retirees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-19-0486, (Ill. App.).
The Illinois Pension Code created in 1963 the Policemen's Annuity
and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago to benefit Chicago police
officers, their widows or widowers, and their children. The fund
provides not only for retired police officers and their families,
but also officers who become disabled. For an officer who suffers
a duty-related disability, he or she has the right to receive
disability benefits "equal to 75% of his salary." The fund also
provides disability benefits for officers who suffer an
occupational disease disability and ordinary disability, also based
on a percentage of their salary.
In May 2018, Plaintiffs Steve De Jesus, Sabrina Dudley Johnson, and
Maria Kouzoukas brought a class action lawsuit against defendant
Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago,
alleging that they and other similarly situated Chicago police
officers had been receiving reduced disability benefits because
defendant failed to properly calculate their salaries -- the metric
that determined the amount of their disability benefits -- by not
including an additional form of compensation known as duty
availability allowance. The duty availability allowance is an
additional form of remuneration to compensate officers for being
available to perform their jobs.
On defendant's motion, the circuit court dismissed plaintiffs'
complaint, finding that they had failed to timely initiate
administrative review of their allegedly miscalculated disability
benefits pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Administrative
Review Law.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that, because their complaint's
claims were based on defendant's systematic miscalculation of their
disability benefits, they were not challenging administrative
decisions and, thus, did not need to follow the procedures set
forth in the Administrative Review Law.
The Appellate Court notes that the present case is a dispute
between pensioners and a pension board, where the pensioners
clearly had interest in and standing to seek the review of their
individual disability award before the pension board. What is
shown through plaintiffs' complaint is that defendant relied on
salary information from the City, in particular when the officer
was removed from the City payroll and, as a result, the final
paychecks of officers. And based on the salary information from
the City, defendant calculated the disability benefit awards that
resulted in some disabled officers receiving benefits that included
the duty availability allowance and some not receiving it. Thus,
it cannot be said that defendant itself had a specific rule,
regulation, standard, or statement of policy to exclude the duty
availability allowance as part of the disability benefit awards.
Although plaintiffs have filed a complaint under the theory of a
systematic miscalculation by defendant, given that they are not a
non-party government entity and defendant had no specific rule,
regulation, standard, or statement of policy to exclude the duty
availability allowance as part of the disability benefit awards,
plaintiffs may not escape the procedures set forth by the
Administrative Review Law. And as long as the decisions of
defendant's board were final and plaintiffs received fair and
adequate notice of the decisions, plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred.
Here, each plaintiff received a letter from defendant's executive
director, informing the plaintiffs that they were granted a duty
disability award of 75% of their salary. Those letters further
provided plaintiffs their specific salary at the time they filed
for disability benefits and the resulting monthly disability
benefit they were awarded. These determinations clearly affected
plaintiffs' legal rights with respect to their benefit awards and
terminated the proceedings before defendant's board. Based on this
information, plaintiffs could have consulted their own salary
records and determined whether the listed salary provided in the
letter included the duty availability allowance or was simply
mirroring their ordinary base pay.
As plaintiffs did not initiate administrative review within 35 days
of receiving notice of their benefit awards, the circuit court
correctly found it was without jurisdiction to entertain the claims
in their complaint and correctly granted defendant's motion to
dismiss, the Appellate Court holds.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/sj7ona7 from Leagle.com
Paul D. Geiger , 29 S. La Salle Street, Chicago, IL 60603- 1507 and
Ronald C. Dahms, 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 3300, Chicago, IL
60603, for appellants.
Mary Patricia Burns - mburns@bbp-chicago.com - Vincent D. Pinelli
- vpinelli@bbp-chicago.com - and Sarah A. Boeckman -
sboeckman@bbp-chicago.com - of Burke Burns & Pinelli, Ltd., David
Kugler , of David R. Kugler & Associates, and Justin Kugler , 100 N
La Salle St Ste 501, Chicago, IL, 60602, for appellee.
CHRISTINE HOTCHKIN: MacDonald Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren MacDonald, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Christine Hotchkin, an individual, Case No.
2:20-cv-00138-SMB (D. Ariz., Jan. 19, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, these calls by Ms. Hotchkin were placed
to consumers using an autodialer without the consumers' prior
written consent to receive such calls. As a result, the Plaintiff
seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by Ms. Hotchkin's telemarketing scheme.
Darren MacDonald is a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona.
Christine Hotchkin is a realtor located in Clark County,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78 Way, Suite 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (602) 529-3474
E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com
- and -
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26 Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Leitner FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chaim Leitner, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services,
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00700 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7,
2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic St.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
COCA-COLA CO: Salerno Sues Over False Labels on Iced Tea Drinks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Salerno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00711
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their iced
tea beverages products purporting to be low in sugar.
The relevant front label statements include "Slightly Sweet," "Tea"
and "Sweetened with 50% less sugar than our original sweet tea" and
"90 Calories Per Bottle." The Plaintiff contends that these
representations are misleading because though being represented as
low in sugar, the drinks actually contain objectively high amounts
of sugar, as added sugar. The Defendant's branding and packaging of
the Products are designed to--and did--deceive, mislead, and
defraud consumers, she asserts.
The Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading branding and
packaging of the Product has enabled the Defendant to sell more of
the Product and at higher prices per unit, than it would have in
the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at
the expense of consumers, according to the complaint. The value of
the Product that the Plaintiff actually purchased and consumed was
materially less than its value as represented by Defendant. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the Products or would have paid less for it. As a result of
the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium
price, approximately no less than $2.99 per unit, excluding tax,
compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading
way.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption
within this district.
The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells iced tea beverages purporting to be low in sugar under
the Gold Peak brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S: Mejia Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Mejia, Chris Kertesz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. THE COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE SCHOOL INC.,
a New York corporation, ALBERT V. HANLEY III, individually, and
MICHAEL HANLEY, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-20575-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 7, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover all wages owed to the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants have unlawfully deprived the Plaintiffs of overtime
compensation during the course of their employment, according to
the complaint. The Defendants enacted and enforced a uniform policy
across the United States, in which they failed to comply with the
overtime requirements of the FLSA during driver instructor training
periods for the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as driver
instructors.
CDL, owned a commercial driver's license training school that
operated in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington, New York,
Texas, and Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
CONOPCO INC: Faces Civello Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conopco, Inc. The
case is styled as Francine Civello, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01173 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Fraud."
Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever, provides personal care
products. The Company offers perfumes, soaps, and shampoos, as well
as food products. Unilever serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11024
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cervantes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CRST International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., and
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 1:20-cv-10106-PBS (D. Mass., Jan. 17,
2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for failing to pay required minimum wages and
unlawfully deducting amounts from the wages of employees that the
Defendants misclassified as independent contractors.
The Plaintiff contends that while the Defendants characterize
Drivers as "independent contractors," the Defendants treat Drivers
as employees by exercising near complete control over Drivers'
work. He adds that the Defendants failed to pay him and the
proposed Class Members the minimum wage for each hour worked,
including compensable hours for which no compensation was paid.
The Plaintiff worked for CRST as a truck driver from Jan. 2018 to
Aug. 2019. He drove and dropped off freight in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held
company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual
revenues of $1.5 billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair St.
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4747 N. 32nd St.m Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
mlicata@martinbonnett.com
- and -
Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
23 Rue Du Laos
Paris, France
Telephone: 684 79 89 30
E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com
CSAA GENERAL: Siler Suit Over Policy Breach Removed to M.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSAA General Insurance Company removed the case captioned as SANDRA
SILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 10382 CV 2019 (Filed
Dec. 17, 2019), from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on Jan. 17, 2020.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00096-JMM.
The Plaintiff alleges that CSAA's "breach of Policy provisions
requiring them to pay Actual Cash Value on total loss claims is a
continuing breach and violation of Policy terms." The Plaintiff
further alleges that "injunctive relief is necessary to stop these
repeated and continued violations, which are likely to continue,
repeat, and cause damages to the Class in the future."
CSAA Insurance is part of the nation-wide AAA-affiliated insurance
companies.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
SAIBER LLC
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 622-3333
Facsimile: (973) 622-3349
E-mail: mwolin@saiber.com
D & M CARRIERS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
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]
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Faces Begg Class Suit Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daiso California LLC.
The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Daiso California LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00891
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Daiso California is a consumer goods company based in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
DRAEGER INC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' PII, Soraghan Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONOR SORAGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DRAEGER, INC. Case No. 20CV0130-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that Draeger failed to adequately safeguard
its employees' personal identifying information in compliance with
the California's Customer Records Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's current and former
employees' most sensitive, non-public PII, including the Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons' names, addresses, Form W-2 data,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and 2015 compensation
information, was compiled and negligently released by the Defendant
in response to a "phishing scam," and is now in the possession of
unknown third parties, who are believed to have posted the PII on
the dark web to be used for illegal purposes.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Draeger to
implement and maintain security practices to comply with
regulations designed to prevent and remedy these types of breaches,
as well as restitution, damages, and other relief.
The Plaintiff commenced employment with Draeger, Inc. in April
2015. During the course of being employed with the Defendant, the
Plaintiff was required to provide the Defendant with personal
information.
The Defendant is an international company based in Lubeck, Germany,
with more than 13,000 employees worldwide and is present in over
190 countries around the globe. The Defendant claims to be a leader
in the fields of medical and IT safety technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
DUPONT: Cumberland County Homebuyers Unaware of PFAs
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Barnes, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that
for decades, DuPont and later Chemours spewed GenX and other PFAS
chemicals into the air at a plant near a rural Cumberland County
community, contaminating well water for at least 1,673 homes.
Despite that, homebuilding there is booming.
No one told Army veteran Carter Bryant about groundwater
contamination near the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant when he
bought a home there in July.
Bryant said he knew almost nothing about GenX and other per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances -- commonly known as PFAS or "forever
chemicals" -- before he and his family moved in.
About two months later, Bryant said, he received a notice from
Chemours stating that contaminants in his home's well water exceed
the level North Carolina considers safe to drink.
Under terms of a consent order, Chemours supplied Bryant with
bottled water until it could install a reverse osmosis filtration
system under his kitchen sink and in two bathrooms.
Bryant is far from alone.
At the beginning of December, 1,673 homes within a nine-mile radius
of the plant had qualified for filtration systems.
Maintained and operating properly, those systems are expected to
remove the potentially cancer-causing contaminants from residents'
drinking water.
But they were never meant to be a permanent solution.
A permanent fix would require extending public water lines.
The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners voted Jan. 6 to extend
public water lines to Alderman and Gray's Creek elementary schools,
which lie in the heart of an area contaminated by PFAS. The board
agreed to allocate $10.5 million from county reserves, about $3
million of which will be used to extend the lines to the schools
within 18 months. The remainder will go toward a second phase to
provide public water to homes in the most affected area of
Cumberland County.
Welcome to Gray's Creek
Most of the affected homes lie in the Gray's Creek community along
the southern edge of Cumberland County. The community's northern
boundary presses against Hope Mills and Fayetteville. The Cape Fear
River bisects the area.
Here, you'll find sprawling farms that have been tended by the same
families for generations. You'll also find new subdivisions that
seem to have sprung up almost overnight.
The neighborhoods come with trendy names, such as James' Place,
Lynn Meadows and Shannon Woods.
Some of the homes come with hefty price tags upward of $300,000.
Many are being built right now. Others have only recently been
bought, many by soldiers stationed at nearby Fort Bragg or veterans
such as Bryant who are looking for a quiet, peaceful lifestyle.
Like Bryant, some of the new homeowners say they would have chosen
another place to live had they been told about the contamination.
"We would never have bought," said Tim Daniels, who relocated with
his wife, Shawna, from Pennsylvania and bought a home in the James'
Place neighborhood in December 2018.
Since then, they have added an inground pool, a privacy fence and
other improvements that Daniels said set him back about $70,000.
That was all done before the couple learned about the
contamination.
Last summer, a contractor for Chemours tested their well water. The
results came back Sept. 11 showing PFAS contamination above a 70
parts per trillion threshold.
That's the level specified in the consent order entered in February
by Chemours, the state Department of Environmental Quality and the
environmental advocacy group Cape Fear River Watch.
The consent order requires Chemours to install filtration systems
whenever a well tests above 10 parts per trillion for a single PFAS
or over 70 parts per trillion for a combination of them. The order
also requires Chemours to provide public water or whole-house
filtration systems to homes, schools and businesses that test above
140 parts per trillion for GenX.
"I had no idea," about groundwater contamination, said Gray's Creek
resident Jordan Johnson. "My husband is military, and we aren't
going to be here forever." Johnson bought an older home on Midus
Street about two years ago. She was awaiting her test results.
Active-duty soldiers are typically required to move from one
military base to another every two to three years. Johnson and
others worry whether they will be able to sell their homes.
Summer Trimm bought a house on School Road in 2018, after Hurricane
Matthew flooded her previous home in Gray's Creek. Trimm said a
real estate agent advised her to get her well tested before
buying.
Trimm said she was told that her well would be sampled for GenX.
When the tests came back, she said, everything looked good. Unknown
to her at the time, the tests failed to sample for GenX or other
PFAS.
Chemours conducted another test of Trimm's well water about two
months ago. Trimm said she learned soon afterward that she
qualified for a filtration system.
"I can't even believe we live in a world that that can happen and
it go under the radar that long," she said.
Airborne pollution
The Chemours Fayetteville Works plant lies about five miles from
Trimm's home, on a 2,150-acre tract along the Cape Fear River. The
plant sits just across the Cumberland County line, in Bladen
County. It was built by DuPont in the early 1970s and became
Chemours in 2015 when Chemours was spun off from DuPont.
Tall vent stacks protrude from the plant's maze of pipes and
buildings. From those stacks, DuPont and Chemours emitted thousands
of pounds of GenX and other PFAS into the air. The chemicals were
blown with the wind and fell with the rain, seeping into
groundwater and contaminating the wells surrounding the plant. A
DEQ sample of rainwater taken in April 2018 measured GenX at 1,580
parts per trillion.
A map of contaminated wells provided by the DEQ begins to tell the
story. Think of a dartboard, with Chemours as the bullseye and 16
pie-shaped sectors extending outward from there. Concentric circles
mark the distance from the plant in miles.
Hundreds of small dots representing contaminated wells fill much of
the map. One dot is unique from all of the others in that it is
farthest from the plant — nine miles.
Every time a well is found to be contaminated at the farthest edge
of testing, Chemours is required by the consent order to expand its
search parameters another quarter of a mile.
Chemours and state regulators didn't expect the contamination zone
to expand out nine miles when testing began about two years ago.
Today, they still don't know where the zone will end, though the
contamination does appear to be lessening as the distance from the
plant increases.
Shortly after Christmas, Chemours began operating a $100 million
thermal oxidizer. The equipment, essentially a giant incinerator,
is expected to reduce 99 percent of the PFAS from 2017 levels
before the chemicals can leave the plant.
Residents are livid
The dots on the map don't just represent contaminated wells. They
represent people. Thousands of them. People who are forced to drink
bottled water while waiting for Chemours to install filtration
systems. People who now worry about their health and the health of
their loved ones. Some of them had been unknowingly drinking
contaminated water for decades.
They worry because forever chemicals, a class of about 5,000
substances that includes GenX, have been found to cause cancer in
laboratory animals. Their potential effects on humans are less
known, but studies show they include liver and kidney damage, high
cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, preeclampsia, low birth weight and
reduced vaccine response in infants. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency classifies PFAS as "possibly carcinogenic."
For that and other reasons, people who live in the nine-mile radius
surrounding Chemours are livid. They believe that they were
knowingly poisoned and that their property values will plummet.
At a community forum on Dec. 3 in Tar Heel, people wanted to know
about the effects of PFAS on their health. How to get their blood
tested. Whether it is safe for their children to bathe in
contaminated well water. Who to call to get their wells sampled.
Hundreds of people regularly go on a Facebook advocacy group page
to provide or search for information or to attack Chemours and
state regulators. They demand action but say they get little
response. Many of them have joined a class-action lawsuit.
It's no coincidence that as the contamination zone expands, so too
does membership to the Facebook page, "Gray's Creek Residents
united against PFAS in our wells and Rivers."
In late November, the group listed about 700 members. By
mid-December, it had claimed its 1,000th member. [GN]
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Greenhut FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander Greenhut,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00707 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 7, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a full-service collection
agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is
experienced in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and
high-volume businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
EDUCATION CREDIT: Reyes May Amend Pleadings in TCPA-CIPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AJ REYES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATION CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00628-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Amend Pleading.
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on March 20, 2015
alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA") by recording phone calls with its customers without their
consent. The Plaintiff alleges that it failed to include a
prerecorded advisement to inform the Plaintiff and the putative
class that the calls would be recorded because the Defendant
improperly set the advisement as a non-mandatory message for
certain inbound lines.
On Nov. 30, 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Court granted summary judgment as to the TCPA claim
and denied it as to the CIPA claim.
On Feb. 24, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class. She
then requested an extension of time to amend the pleadings in June
20, 2017, stating that she did not learn that she was recorded by
the Defendant during a phone call until June 14, 2017 and intended
to be added to the Plaintiff's litigation as a class
representative. The Court subsequently granted the motion and
extended the deadline to amend until Oct. 11, 2017.
The Court certified the class on Sept. 20, 2017. The Defendant
appealed the order on Oct. 4, 2017. On Oct. 11, 2017, the
Plaintiff moved to amend the pleadings to add Ms. Mahboob as a
putative class representative and to amend the class certification
order to reflect the change. The Defendant then filed a Motion to
Stay the case in the Court pending appeal of the class
certification order, which the Court granted on March 13, 2018. In
light of the stay, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend
to add Ms. Mahboob as a class representative but permitted her to
refile the motion within two weeks of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on
the appeal.
On July 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification
order and remanded the action.
On Aug. 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking to
add Ms. Mahboob as a putative class representative. She alleges
that Ms. Mahboob experienced a hold time of 0 seconds before being
transferred to an agent, she could not have heard the Recording
Disclosure even assuming, as the Defendant alleges, the disclosure
would have been heard by all in-bound callers on hold for four
seconds or more before transfer to an agent. The Defendant opposes
the Motion on several grounds, including on the basis that adding
Ms. Mahboob would purportedly violate the Ninth Circuit's mandate
in its order remanding the class certification issue.
The Defendant primarily opposes the Motion on the basis that the
Plaintiff brings the Motion in bad faith. In sum, it alleges that
the Plaintiff's Motion seeks to improperly bypass the Ninth
Circuit's mandate on remand and that the actions of both the
Plaintiff and Ms. Mahboob reflect their "tactical choices" to avoid
an adverse ruling, which also violated the Court's orders.
Judge Bashant rejects each of the Defendant's arguments. She finds
that the Plaintiff's Motion was not filed in bad faith. First, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff's Motion -- and the Court's decision
to rule on that Motion -- is not foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit's
remand order. Second, neither the Ninth Circuit nor te Court has
made a determination about the Plaintiff's standing at this point
in the litigation. No determination was made as to the Plaintiff's
standing as the initial class representative. Third, the
Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff's instant Motion is a
calculated attempt to evade the Ninth Circuit's ruling is
unsupported by the record. Fifth, Ms. Mahboob filed the action in
light of the one-year statute of limitations on her class claim.
The Judge does not find that the Plaintiff's request to add Ms.
Mahboob as a class representative will cause undue delay. The
Plaintiff stated his intention to add Ms. Mahboob as an additional
class representative in June 2017 and timely filed a motion seeking
to amend the complaint but was denied this opportunity in light of
the stay. Moreover, although the addition of Ms. Mahboob may
require the parties to engage in further discovery that would
extend the litigation, the Judge does not find that this
"substantially complicates" and delays the case such that it
constitutes undue delay.
The Defendant's claims that prejudice and futility weigh against
amendment are based on a rehashing of its arguments that the Ninth
Circuit's memorandum disposition will not be "implemented as
ordered" if amendment is permitted and that binding case law
(Lierboe and NEI) prohibits amendment in this circumstance. The
Judge dismisses these arguments for the reasons described.
Lastly, the Defendant argues, without citation to supporting
authority, that Ms. Mahboob's filing of the Central District action
was effectively an amendment made three days after this Court
denied the initial motion to amend. The Judge does not understand
how Ms. Mahboob's decision to file a separate action to preserve
her claim constitutes an "effective amendment" in the case.
Moreover, the Court specifically permitted the Plaintiff to re-file
the instant Motion after the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on
appeal. Therefore, the Judge is not persuaded that the existence
of Ms. Mahboob's Central District action weighs against granting
leave to amend.
Accordingly, Judge Bashant granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Amend the Pleadings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Uo8ADW from Leagle.com.
A J Reyes is represented by Alexis M. Wood, Esq. --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. --
kas@consumersadvocates.com -- and -- Ronald Marron, Esq. --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON -- and -
- Daniel G. Shay, Esq. -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com
-- LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
Educational Credit Management Corporation is represented by David
J. Kaminski, Esq. -- KaminskiD@cmtlaw.com -- and Martin Schannong,
Esq. -- schannom@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Give Proper COBRA Notice, Roll Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Roll, Colleen Ronan, and David K. Ronan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ENHANCED RESOURCE CENTERS, Case No.
6:20-cv-00212 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
failed to provide required notices of the putative class members'
right to continued health care coverage under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
The Defendant offered a qualified group health plan to its
employees as a part of their benefit package. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant has violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute.
As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain health coverage, the Plaintiffs seek statutory
penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and other appropriate relief and as provided by law.
The Plaintiffs are covered employees and participants in the Plan.
The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company with its
headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida, and is the Plan sponsor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donna V. Smith, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main No: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
EZCORP INC: Cash Converters Settles Class Suit in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that Cash Converters International
agreed on October 21, 2019, to settle a class action lawsuit
previously filed on behalf of borrowers residing in Queensland,
Australia who took out personal loans from Cash Converters between
July 30, 2009 and June 30, 2013.
Cash Converters International agreed to pay AU$42.5 million,
subject to court approval.
EZCORP said, "We recorded a charge, net of tax, of $7.1 million for
our proportionate share of the settlement in the current quarter
related to this event, in addition to our regularly included share
of earnings from Cash Converters International. Cash Converters
International has indicated that it expects to pay the settlement
amount with cash on hand and cash flow from operations."
EZCORP, Inc. provides pawn loans. It operates through three
segments: U.S. Pawn, Latin America Pawn, and Other International.
EZCORP, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Austin,
Texas.
EZCORP INC: Securities Suit Dismissed After Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that the Court in the class action
suit entitled, In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master
File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), entered a judgment approving the agreed
settlement and dismissing the claims asserted against the
defendants.
In July 2015 and August 2015, two substantially identical lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
Those lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action
under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master
File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The original complaint related to the
Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate its
financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of
fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued
materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company,
its finances, business operations and prospects and that the
Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo
Finmart business.
In January 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which asserted that the
Company and Mark E. Kuchenrither, the company's former Chief
Financial Officer, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company and its internal controls,
specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart.
The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling
person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.
In October 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, raising the same claims
previously dismissed by the Court, but reducing the class period
(November 7, 2013 to October 20, 2015 instead of November 6, 2012
to October 20, 2015).
In May 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to
Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for "nonperforming"
loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims
relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan
portfolios to third parties.
Following discovery on the surviving claims, the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to
revive the "nonperforming" loan claims that the Court previously
dismissed, and on July 26, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend, thus accepting the Third Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Court issued an order
certifying the class and approving the class representative and
class counsel in February 2019, and we appealed that order to the
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which appeal was granted in
March 2019.
On May 30, 2019, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement of all
remaining claims, and on June 18, 2019 entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement reflecting the terms of the agreed
settlement, which called for the payment of $4.9 million by the
defendants.
Following a settlement fairness hearing on December 6, 2019, the
Court entered a judgment approving the agreed settlement and
dismissing the claims asserted against the defendants.
The settlement amount (which was covered by applicable directors'
and officers' liability insurance) has been disbursed as provided
in the approved settlement.
EZCORP, Inc. provides pawn loans. It operates through three
segments: U.S. Pawn, Latin America Pawn, and Other International.
EZCORP, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Austin,
Texas.
FACEBOOK INC: Consolidated Cyber-Attack Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack.
Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with the company's platform and user data practices as
well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such
data with third parties in violation of the company's terms and
policies, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages.
These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action relating to the company's
platform and user data practices.
On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend. On November 15, 2019, an amended
complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class
action.
The company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it
is vigorously defending them.
Facebook said, "In addition, our platform and user data practices,
as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. In July 2019,
the company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to
resolve the FTC inquiry, which is pending federal court approval.
Among other matters, the company's settlement with the FTC requires
it to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion and to significantly enhance
our practices and processes for privacy compliance and oversight.
Facebook added, "Any other government inquiries regarding these
matters could subject us to additional substantial fines and costs,
require us to change our business practices, divert resources and
the attention of management from our business, or adversely affect
our business."
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that four companies sued Facebook Inc in US federal
court on Jan. 16 for alleged anticompetitive conduct, saying the
social network inappropriately revoked developer access to its
platform in order to harm prospective competitors.
The plaintiffs sought class-action status and unspecified damages,
according to a filing at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
"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,"
said Yavar Bathaee -- yavar@piercebainbridge.com -- a partner at
law firm Pierce Bainbridge and co-lead counsel in the case.
The filing is an escalation of Facebook's battles with small app
developers that had built companies based on access to its user
data. Facebook cut off access for certain apps as far back as 2012,
while still allowing access for others.
Thousands of pages of damaging internal emails have emerged from a
similar lawsuit filed by Six4Three, the developer of a
now-shuttered bikini photo app. Facebook has described the
Six4Three case as baseless.
Facebook did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for
comment on the latest lawsuit.
The social network also faces multiple investigations into possible
antitrust violations by regulators around the world. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Four Developers File Class Action Over Spyware
------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for eCommerceBYTES, reports that Facebook
attempted to stifle competition and use its market power to do so,
according to a class action lawsuit filed by four developers on
January 16, 2020, the Verge reported. And the plaintiffs are trying
to force Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to sell his
controlling shares in the company, according to CBS MoneyWatch.
On page 56 of the complaint, published in a PDF file on the Vox
Media website (parent company of TheVerge.com), the plaintiffs
allege Facebook "used mobile spyware on an unprecedented scale to
surveil, identify, and eventually remove from the market through
acquisition competitors that independently threatened Facebook's
dominance . . .,"and they allege the following:
"Onavo sold the mobile usage data it collected to Facebook, which
in turn used the real-time information it received from Onavo to
determine which mobile applications posed a threat to Facebook's
dominance and to the SDBE protecting Facebook from new entrants and
competition.
"Facebook used Onavo data to: (a) identify and target competitors
from which Facebook could demand Whitelist and Data Sharing
Agreements; (b) identify and target competitors to whom Facebook
would completely deny Platform access; and (c) identify and target
competitors that Facebook would remove from the competitive
landscape entirely through acquisition."
Facebook, in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, called the case against
it "without merit." The company said it operates in "a competitive
environment where people and advertisers have many choices."
Facebook is also facing trouble on another front. A judge ruled on
January 17, 2020, that the company must turn over information to
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who requested it as
part of her investigation started in March 2018 "following
revelations that data mining firm Cambridge Analytica used
ill-gotten data from millions of Facebook users through an app,
then used the data to try to influence U.S. elections," CBS Boston
reported.
Facebook launched its own investigation in March of 2018, and in
September of 2019, it wrote on the Facebook blog that its review
helped it "to better understand patterns of abuse in order to root
out bad actors among developers."
"It is important to understand that the apps that have been
suspended are associated with about 400 developers," Facebook
wrote. "This is not necessarily an indication that these apps were
posing a threat to people. Many were not live but were still in
their testing phase when we suspended them."
But the AG said, "Facebook simply telling its users that their data
is safe without the facts to back it up does not work for us."
[GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Agreed in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California related to cyber-attack have
agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit.
Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes, but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.
On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.
Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries.
Any such inquiries could subject us to substantial fines and costs,
require us to change our business practices, divert resources and
the attention of management from our business, or adversely affect
our business."
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Biometrics Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class
action suit over the use of facial recognition feature, have agreed
to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, which will
require a payment of $550 million by the company and is subject to
approval by the court.
On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (IBIPA), and seeking statutory damages and
injunctive relief.
On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment.
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the Company's petition for review of the class
certification order and stayed the proceeding.
On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order.
On December 2, 2019, the Company filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit,
which was denied.
On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit, which will require a payment of
$550 million by the company and is subject to approval by the
court.
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FBCS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Cymonisse Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc. The case
is styled as Germa Cymonisse, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., Case No. Germa Cymonisse
(D.N.J., Feb. 7, 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Federal Bond And Collection Service, Inc. (FBCS) provides
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
FINANCIAL ASSET: Panzarella Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FINANCIAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. The case is styled as Elizabeth
Panzarella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00699-AB (E.D. Pa., Feb. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. (FAMS) is an Account
Recovery Solutions provider that has developed an industry-leading,
multi-tiered approach to loss prevention, account rehabilitation,
and revenue recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
1500 Walnut St., Suite 900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 351-0200
Fax: (215) 922-3874
Email: rcocco@rcn.com
FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Denison Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS DENISON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00098 (M.D. Fla., February 7, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Plaintiff Denison is a non-exempt former employee of Defendant who
worked as an hourly wages insurance salesperson at Defendant's
offices located in Lee County, Florida.
Plaintiff complains that he was not being paid the federally
mandated wage for overtime despite working more than 40 hours per
week during nearly every week of his employment from on or about
August 2019 until January 23, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 617-6017
Fax: (954) 617-6018
Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com
FIRST TRANSIT: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Cuellar Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK CUELLAR, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT INC., an active Ohio
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
30-2020-01125049-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 17,
2020), arises out of First Transit's alleged failure to provide
meal periods and rest periods at the proper intervals.
The Defendants also failed to pay all wages owed, including
overtime, to provide accurate and legally compliant wage
statements, to pay all wages owed to terminated or separated
employees in a timely manner, and to pay all vacation pay owed to
terminated or separated employees, all in violation of the
California Labor Code, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in Orange County from
around Nov. 2018 through Jan. 25, 2019.
First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup.
Headquartered at 600 Vine Street, in Cincinnati, Ohio, First
Transit operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million
passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states,
Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
Haik Hacopian, Esq.
MOORADIAN LAW, APC
24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 487-1998
Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
haik@mooradianlaw.com
FISH SIX RESTAURANT: Faces Hopkins Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FISH SIX RESTAURANT
CORP., ET AL. The case is styled as Kendrick Hopkins, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. FISH SIX
RESTAURANT CORP, DBA THE MELT, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, DOES 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20582809 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Feb. 7, 2020).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
Fish Six Restaurant Corp. was founded in 2009. The Company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
FIVE GUYS: Initial Approval of Lusk Suit Settlement Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
JEREMY R. LUSK, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES LLC; and ENCORE
FGBF, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00762-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.).
In this lawsuit, an employee, on behalf of himself and a proposed
class of his fellow employees, is suing his two employers for
violating California wage-and-hour laws and California and federal
consumer reporting laws. The employee is Plaintiff Jeremy Lusk, and
the employers are Defendant Five Guys Enterprises LLC and Defendant
Encore FGBF, LLC (Defendants).
Lusk filed a motion for a preliminary fairness determination of a
proposed settlement agreement in the case.
According to the ruling, based on the information and analysis
provided by Lusk to the Court, the Court cannot conclude that the
parties' proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) or will likely warrant class
certification under Rule 23(a)-(b). This is largely because Lusk
failed to demonstrate that the proposed settlement agreement offers
adequate relief to the Class, which is required under Rule
23(e)(2)(C). Additionally, Lusk failed to demonstrate that the
expenditure indemnification claim and consumer reporting claims
will likely warrant class certification under Rule 23(a)-(b).
The Court will address Lusk's most notable failures.
Whether there is adequate relief to the Class
Based on the following considerations, the Court cannot conclude
that the proposed settlement agreement provides adequate relief to
the Class under Rule 23(e)(2)(C).
The amount of the settlement in light of the Class's potential
recovery, discounted by the risk of adjudication on the merits
The amount offered in the proposed settlement agreement is
generally considered to be the most important consideration of any
class settlement. To determine whether a proposed settlement amount
is reasonable, the court must consider the amount obtained in
recovery against the estimated value of the class claims if those
claims were successfully adjudicated on the merits.
Here, Lusk failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed
settlement agreement provides adequate relief to the Class in light
of the Class's potential recovery, discounted by the risks of
adjudication on the merits. Lusk merely asserts without any
meaningful discussion or detail that the claims against the
Defendants, if they were to proceed to trial and not settle, would
risk the difficulty and uncertainty of being certified under Rule
23(a)-(b) and being proven on the merits, says the Court.
There are multiple problems with Lusk's foregoing risk assessment,
and those problems preclude the Court from concluding that the
proposed settlement amount is adequate.
First, Lusk's risk assessment merely identifies generalized risks
that are inherent and ubiquitous in virtually all wage-and-hour
putative class action lawsuits. In other words, Lusk failed to
explain with any precision or detail how and why the foregoing
risks are at play in this lawsuit. For example, Lusk did not
identify and analyze any particular facts or evidence in this
lawsuit and then explain how and to what extent those facts and
evidence give rise to the foregoing risks. Again, Lusk failed to
address and answer these important questions, just as he failed to
do for nearly all of the other asserted risks.
Second and related to the first, Lusk's risk assessment fails to
meaningfully analyze the risks associated with each claim in this
lawsuit, of which there are several. Instead, Lusk simply
generalized the asserted risks as if they applied equally and for
the same reasons to each of the several claims.
Third, in light of Lusk's foregoing failures, it follows that
Lusk's proposed risk factor discounts are meaningless to the Court.
Lusk asserts that Defendants' maximum exposure for some but not all
of the claims should be reduced by a specific risk factor discount.
For example, Lusk estimates that Defendants' maximum exposure for
the meal period claim is $872,470.21. Lusk then asserts that there
is a risk factor discount of 60% (or a $523,482.12 reduction from
the maximum exposure) for proving liability on the meal period
claim and a risk factor discount of 25% (or a $218,117.55 reduction
from the maximum exposure) for establishing that class
certification is warranted on the meal period claim.
In sum, it is insufficient for purposes of demonstrating the
adequacy of the settlement's relief to baldly assert, as Lusk has
done here, that the Class's relief should be severely reduced from
the maximum exposure, all because proving liability and
establishing class certification on California wage-and-hour claims
has historically been difficult and challenging in other lawsuits.
Fourth, like Lusk's proposed risk factor discounts, Lusk's proposed
maximum exposure estimates lack meaningful explanation and
supporting facts and evidence. Lusk proposes maximum exposure
estimates for some (but not all) of the claims. For example, as
previously noted, Lusk estimates the maximum exposure for the meal
period claim to be $872,470.21. But the only explanation that Lusk
provides for this estimate is that it is based on average wage
rates, numbers of employees, and the amount of time covered by the
class period.
Fifth, Lusk's failure to address the risk factor discounts and
maximum estimate exposures for all claims including the
expenditure indemnification claim, the UCL claim, and the consumer
reporting claims is an obvious deficiency on Lusk's part. The
proposed settlement agreement covers all of Lusk's claims, but
Lusk's motion failed to address, let alone acknowledge, the
expenditure indemnification claim and the consumer reporting
claims.
The extent to which the parties have engaged in sufficient
discovery to evaluate the merits of the case
Class action settlements are favored more when a considerable
amount of discovery has been conducted, and this is because the
considerable discovery suggests that the parties arrived at a
compromise based on a full understanding of the legal and factual
issues surrounding the case.
Here, Lusk asserts that the proposed settlement agreement was
reached after some discovery, and the discovery included formal
written discovery; the premediation exchange of information;
numerous communications between the Parties; and the deposition of
Plaintiff. Lusk further asserts that the pre-mediation exchange of
information included detailed time records for class members. But
Lusk's explanation of the discovery conducted is too generalized to
satisfy the Court that the parties, and particularly Lusk,
conducted sufficient discovery.
Unreasonably high attorney's fees
In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable
attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or
by the parties' agreement.
Here, the proposed attorney's fees award of $400,000 is to be paid
from the common fund, namely, the Gross Settlement Amount. A lawyer
who recovers "a common fund for the benefit of persons other than
himself or his client" is entitled to reasonable attorney fees from
the fund as a whole.
Here, Lusk's proposed attorney's fee award of $400,000 is
approximately 33.3% of the Gross Settlement Amount. This amount
obviously exceeds the benchmark of 25% of the Gross Settlement
Amount, which is approximately $300,000. Lusk has failed to
demonstrate that the upward adjustment of 8% or $100,000 is
warranted.
At most, Lusk asserts that the upward adjustment is warranted for
the following reasons: (1) Lusk's counsel took this lawsuit on a
contingency basis without any guarantee that the lawsuit would
prevail against Defendants (2) Lusk's counsel contributed time and
resources to the lawsuit (3) Lusk's counsel forewent other
money-making opportunities in order to handle this lawsuit (4)
other wage-and-hour putative class action lawsuits have experienced
long delays, individual arbitration orders and outright failures
for the plaintiff and the class (5) Lusk's counsel is experienced
in wage-and-hour law, which is a narrow field" that is rapidly
evolving and (6) Lusk's counsel typically requires a 40%
contingency fee from his clients.
Lusk's stated reasons for the upward adjustment are not persuasive.
First, nearly all of the stated reasons can be said to apply for
virtually all plaintiff's attorneys in wage-and-hour putative class
action lawsuits meaning Lusk's stated reasons alone do not warrant
a unique upward adjustment. The only stated reason that potently
carries any weight with the Court is the proposition that Lusk's
attorney is experienced in California wage-and-hour litigation, and
that California wage-and-hour law is a narrow field. The Court does
not disagree with Lusk that California wage-and-hour law is a
narrow field. But many fields of law are narrow.
Thus, the more important question is whether the wage-and-hour law
issues in this lawsuit are of sufficient complexity to warrant an
upward adjustment, and Lusk has failed to answer that question.
Lusk failed to bring those issues to the Court's attention with
sufficient explanation and supporting evidence.
Second, Lusk failed to demonstrate that the Vizcaino factors
identified supra warrant an upward departure. For example, Lusk
failed to (1) thoroughly explain how the result obtained in the
proposed settlement agreement warrants an upward departure (2)
thoroughly explain (as discussed supra) the risks involved in this
lawsuit that warrant an upward departure (3) thoroughly explain his
counsel's efforts in this lawsuit and (4) identify and discuss the
awards that have been made in similar lawsuits in this district and
California.
For these reasons, Lusk's motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement agreement is DENIED without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/spbtgcl from Leagle.com.
Jeremy R Lusk, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun
Setareh - shaun@setarehlaw.com Setareh Law Group.
Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited liability company &
Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by Andrew Hoon Woo - awoo@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson PC, James Phuc Van - jpvan@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson & Ryan Lee Eddings - reddings@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson A Professional Corporation.
FLEX LTD: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit Set for April 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California is set to be heard on April 9,
2020.
On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.
On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case.
On November 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and analyst and
investor conferences and expanding the putative class period
through October 25, 2018.
On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process. On September 26, 2019, the Court
appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the
case. On November 8, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint.
On December 4, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss is set for hearing
on April 9, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.
Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.
FORSTER & GARBUS: Garcia Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Jesse Garcia, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00731 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10,
2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Misrepresents Purell Sanitizer, Jurkiewicz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Jurkiewicz, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a PURELL, Case No.
5:20-cv-00279-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 9, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive advertising and
manufacturing practices regarding their Purell Hand Sanitizer
products.
The Defendant's "Purell" products are universally recognized and
trusted to provide swift, effective protection from germs, which
cause diseases and illness. The Defendant, however, falsely markets
its Purell Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer products, which
include Purell Advanced Hand Sanitizer, as protecting consumers
from pathogens, such as flu, norovirus, MRSA, VRE, Ebola, and
Candida auris, among others, the Plaintiff asserts. He note that he
and other members of the proposed class purchased the Defendant's
products for their own personal use based on its false and
misleading advertising and deceptive business practices.
In a January 17, 2020 warning letter sent to the Defendant, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration described the Products as nothing
more than topical antiseptic not adequately proven to be safe and
effective for preventing disease or infection from pathogens. The
Warning Letter describes misrepresentations made by the Defendant
in connection with its advertising of the Products and notifies the
Defendant that the Products amount to an unapproved new drug for
which no marketing approval was sought.
The Defendant has unlawfully been misleading consumers to believe
that its "topical antiseptic" can prevent illness and reduce
disease by making claims that go well beyond the capabilities of
such an antiseptic, the Plaintiff contends. In so doing, he avers,
the Defendant has gained tremendous brand recognition and prestige
and reaped millions in Products' sales while he and the Class are
left dirty-handed.
Plaintiff Cliff Jurkiewicz is a resident and citizen of Montgomery
County. He insists that the Defendant's conduct has caused him to
suffer economic damages, and that restitution and injunctive relief
are required to remedy and prevent further harm.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
distribution of hand hygiene products, including hand
sanitizers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 665-0200
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Phone: (561) 232-6002
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: dgeorge@4-justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton On Hudson, NY 10502
Phone: (917) 983-9321
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
- and -
Mark Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON & ASSOCIATES
113 Cherry Street, Suite 34835
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (360) 440-0734
Email: markamorrison@me.com
GPS SERVICES: Faces Andrews Suit in Calif.; April 15 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GPS Services Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as JAMES ANDREWS, FOR HIMSELF, AS A
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND OR ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GPS SERVICES INC.; OLD NAVY (APPAREL), LLC; OLD NAVY
HOLDINGS, LLC; OLD NAVY, LLC; THE GAP, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 20,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC19580710 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Jan. 17, 2019).
The lawsuit involves business torts-related issues. A case
management conference is set for April 15, 2020.
GPS Services is a computer software company based in Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina. Old Navy is an American clothing and
accessories retailing company owned by American multinational
corporation Gap Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Morley Kekoa Hattis, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Ave. NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004-5575
Telephone: (425) 233-8628
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Duffy, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Telephone: 213-612-7378
Web site: http://www.MorganLewis.com/
GREATER ALLIANCE: Reports Incorrect Credit Info, Sosa Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sosa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated consumers
v. Greater Alliance Federal Credit Union and TransUnion, LLC, Case
No. BER-L-000408-20 (N.J. Super., Bergen Cty., Jan. 17, 2020),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
continuously reporting incorrect credit information.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff took out a personal loan
from GAFCU. In 2014, the loan went delinquent due to non-payment.
In May 2015, the Plaintiff negotiated a settlement with GAFCU and
complied with the settlement terms.
In July 2018, the Plaintiff reviewed his TransUnion credit report
and noticed that the GAFCU trade line was not reporting correctly.
The Plaintiff contends that the trade line listed the status as
"Charged Off" as opposed to "Settled" or "Paid Charge Off."
Additionally, the trade line listed the "Date Closed" as June 30,
2018. In fact, the Plaintiff asserts, the proper date closed was
May 2015. He adds that the incorrect status of the account is
significant because the status negatively affects the score and his
credit worthiness.
TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency engaged in the business
of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports. GAFCU has
been open since 1937. It's the 13th largest credit union in New
Jersey with assets totaling $197.43 Million and providing banking
services to more than 22,000 members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Nicholas Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: 862 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
HEAVY HAMMER: Faces Hildre TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hildre, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HEAVY HAMMER, INC., QAZZOO, LLC, DOES, Case No.
3:20-cv-00236-L-LL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2020), is brought for
damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff for
marketing purposes on his cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.
According to the complaint, tt no time did the Plaintiff provide
his current cellular telephone number to the Defendants through any
medium. The Plaintiff had never heard of the Defendants prior to
receiving the calls from them. The calls were placed via an
"automatic telephone dialing system," as prohibited by the TCPA.
The Defendants' calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
were unsolicited and were placed without prior express written
consent or permission.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of San Diego in the State
of California. Through the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff
asserts he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in
privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the
TCPA.
Heavy Hammer is a Maryland corporation whose principal place of
business is located at Annapolis, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
14410 Via Venezia, #1404
San Diego, CA 92129-1666
Phone: (858) 299-5879
Fax: (619) 354-7281
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
HYCROFT MINING: Faces Pope Suit Over Breach of Warrant Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travus Pope, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HYCROFT MINING CORPORATION and MUDRICK
CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 2020-0068- (Del. Ch.,
Feb. 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
beneficial holders of warrants issued by Hycroft on October 22,
2015.
The New Warrants were issued pursuant to the terms of a Warrant
Agreement and the terms of the Global Warrant Certificate.
The case concerns the efforts of Hycroft and certain of its equity
holders (who hold a majority of Hycroft's common equity) to
allegedly fleece its Warrant Holders at a time when Hycroft is
primed to succeed. These recent efforts represent the final stage
of a process that originated in 2015 when Hycroft's predecessor,
Allied Nevada Gold Corporation, emerged from bankruptcy and changed
its name to Hycroft.
Under the terms of a Global Settlement entered in connection with
ANV's bankruptcy, a group of Hycroft's former lenders (the "Ad Hoc
Group") consisting of Mudrick Capital Management, LP, Aristeia
Capital LLC, Highbridge Capital Management, LLC, Whitebox Advisors
LLC, Wolverine Asset Management, LLC, and USAA Asset Management
Company, became the holders of a majority of the common equity of
Hycroft, as well as the holders of additional notes with a right to
convert those notes into the common equity of Hycroft. ANV's
pre-bankruptcy equity holders were given the right to receive
warrants to purchase equity in Hycroft, which upon exercise would
represent a 17.5% equity interest in Hycroft.
The Warrant Agreement contained significant protections for Warrant
Holders in the event that the Company were to effect a merger or
other transaction that would constitute a "Fundamental Change" to
the Company. The Warrant Agreement defines a Fundamental Change as,
among other things, a sale of all or substantially all of Hycroft's
assets in which Hycroft's New Common Stock is "cancelled,
reclassified or converted or changed into or exchanged for
securities of Hycroft]or other property." Warrant Agreement. In the
event of a Fundamental Change, the Warrant Holders are to be
afforded the right to exercise their Warrants in the same manner as
they would prior to the occurrence of the Fundamental Change.
On January 14, 2020, Hycroft and Mudrick Capital Acquisition
Corporation ("MUDS") announced that they had signed a definitive
agreement to sell all of the equity of Hycroft's subsidiaries and
all or substantially all of Hycroft's other assets (the
"Transaction") to MUDS in return for, among other things, shares of
MUDS Class A common stock that will be distributed immediately
thereafter on a pro rata basis to Hycroft's common shareholders,
chief among them members of the Ad Hoc Group pursuant to the
purchase agreement governing the Transaction. The Transaction
constitutes a "Fundamental Change" as defined in the Warrant
Agreement because it constitutes a sale of all of Hycroft's assets
in which the outstanding stock of Hycroft is "changed" into an
equity interest in both Hycroft and MUDS, with MUDS holding all of
the assets and Hycroft left as a worthless shell.
MUDS, however, has not agreed to honor the rights of the Warrant
Holders, and in fact the Purchase Agreement expressly excludes the
Warrants from any participation. The Transaction, thus,
contemplates no consideration flowing to the Warrant Holders, who
will continue to hold New Warrants to purchase the common stock of
the gutted Hycroft following consummation of the Transaction. The
Transaction, thus, constitutes a flagrant breach of the Warrant
Agreement, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Travus Pope is the beneficial owner of New Warrants to
purchase common stock of Hycroft.
Hycroft is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Michael D. Bell, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: 302-622-7000
ILM FIELD SERVICES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Adams et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ADAMS; and LISA CASSEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILM FIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00007 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 9, 2020) 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 delivery driver.
ILM Field Services LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Lyric Center, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
IQ FORMULATIONS: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Debernardis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued
an Opinion vacating a district court judgment granting Defendants'
Dismissal Motion in the case captioned JOSHUA DEBERNARDIS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CHRISTINA
DAMORE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IQ FORMULATIONS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, EUROPA SPORTS PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-11778, (11th Cir.).
The case arises out of the plaintiffs' purchase of the dietary
supplement Metabolic Nutrition Synedrex (Synedrex). IQ has
manufactured and sold Synedrex and another dietary supplement,
Metabolic Nutrition E.S.P. Each plaintiff purchased and used
Synedrex.
After purchasing Synedrex, the plaintiffs sued IQ and Europa in
federal court, bringing a putative class action. The plaintiffs
brought claims against IQ under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, against both defendants under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, against both
defendants under New York General Business Law Section 349, et seq
and against both defendants for common law fraud and unjust
enrichment. As the basis for all the claims, the plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants had engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and
unjust conduct when they sold the supplements and failed to
disclose that sale of the supplements was illegal in the United
States.
Plaintiffs Joshua Debernardis and Christina Damore appeal the
district court's dismissal of their claims against defendants IQ
Formulations, LLC and Europa Sports Products, Inc. The plaintiffs
argue that the district court erred in concluding they suffered no
injury in fact and thus lacked standing. Their allegations that
they purchased from the defendants dietary supplements that the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. sec. 301
et seq, banned from sale are sufficient, they contend, to establish
that they suffered an injury in fact.
After careful consideration and with the benefit of oral argument,
the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that they suffered an economic loss when they purchased
supplements that were worthless because the FDCA prohibited sale of
the supplements. Because the plaintiffs have standing to pursue
their claims, the case is vacated and remanded, the Eleventh
Circuit rules.
A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 14, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx6te77m from
Leagle.com
Todd McLawhorn - tmclawhorn@siprut.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Bruce A. Katzen , 201 S. Biscayne BoulevardSuite 2700Miami, FL
33131, for Defendant-Appellee.
Diane Wagner Katzen , 201 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 1000, Miami, FL,
331314327, for Defendant-Appellee.
John A. Yanchunis - jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan Betten Cohen , Morgan & Morgan, 201 N. Franklin Street,
7th Floor
Tampa, FL, 33602, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Joseph J. Siprut , 17 North State Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
60602, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Rachel Soffin - rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Nick Suciu, III - nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Richard L. Miller, II – rmiller@novackmacey.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Richard S. Wilson - rwilson@rwlex.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Gumm Class Action under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
court in Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, has heard
oral argument on the motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement.
On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.
The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.
The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages. On September 30, 2016,
approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs
filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items,
to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany
payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States
federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class
of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin
Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue
Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a
result of the closing of the merger.
The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017. On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral argument
on the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement.
Johnson said, "Although the Company believes it has substantial
defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to predict the
outcome of this action."
Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
company and its subsidiaries continue to defend several class
action suits related to Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF").
Two of the company's subsidiaries, Chemguard and Tyco Fire
Products, have been named, along with other defendant
manufacturers, in a number of class action and other lawsuits
relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S.
Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression
purposes and related training exercises.
Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products
manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and/or other PFAS compounds and that the use of these
products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites
resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and
ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring
those airports, airbases and other sites.
PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other
environmental and health agencies and researchers. The EPA has not
issued binding regulatory limits, but has stated that it would
propose regulatory standards for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water by
the end of 2019, in accordance with its PFAS Action Plan released
in February 2019, and issued interim recommendations for addressing
PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in December 2019.
While those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory
level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are
types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in
firefighting foam. However, both are also present in many existing
consumer products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used
to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging
for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to
water, grease or stains.
Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages
for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in
property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural
resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive
relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination.
In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a
Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to
consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one
jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order
transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation
("MDL") before the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina. Additional cases have been identified for transfer
to the MDL.
AFFF Putative Class Actions
Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 24 putative class
actions in federal and state courts in Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington New Hampshire,
Guam, and Michigan. Each of these cases has been transferred to the
MDL. The following putative class actions were filed since the
beginning of fiscal year 2020:
* Aguon et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 3,
2019, in the United States District Court, District of Guam.
AFFF Individual or Mass Actions
There are approximately 152 individual or "mass" actions pending in
federal court in Colorado (41 cases), New York (4 cases),
Pennsylvania (11 cases), New Mexico (2 cases) and South Carolina
(94 cases) against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other
defendants in which the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical
monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values.
The cases involve approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado,
approximately 126 plaintiffs in New York, 15 plaintiffs in
Pennsylvania, two plaintiffs in New Mexico, and approximately 100
plaintiffs from various states who direct-filed complaints in South
Carolina. These matters have been transferred to or directly-filed
in the MDL.
The Company is also on notice of approximately 660 other possible
individual product liability claims by filings made in Pennsylvania
state court, but complaints have not been filed in those matters in
Pennsylvania. Some of the individuals who filed claims in
Pennsylvania state court filed individual complaints in the MDL in
South Carolina (and dismissed their claims in Pennsylvania state
court), and the Company anticipates that the rest will soon be
filed in the MDL.
AFFF Municipal Cases
Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in 37 cases in
federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider
plaintiffs in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and South Carolina.
These municipal plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the
defendants' fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies,
municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force
bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells,
allegedly requiring remediation of public property. All of these
cases but one have been transferred to the MDL. The following
municipal actions were filed since the beginning of fiscal year
2020:
* California Water Service Co. v. The 3M Company et al.,
direct-filed on October 14, 2019 in the MDL pending in the United
States District Court, District of South Carolina.
* Town of Ayer v. The 3M Company et al., direct-filed on
November 4, 2019 in the MDL pending in the United States District
Court, District of South Carolina.
* Town of Maysville v. The 3M Company et al., direct-filed on
December 10, 2019 in the MDL pending in the United States District
Court, District of South Carolina.
* Town of Grantsville v. The 3M Company et al., filed November
26, 2019, in the United States District Court, District of
Maryland.
* Town of Mountain Lake Park v. The 3M Company et al., filed
November 26, 2019, in the United States District Court, District of
Maryland.
* Sanford Airport Authority v. The 3M Company et al., filed
November 19, 2019, in circuit court in Seminole County, Florida,
and removed to the United States District Court, Middle District of
Florida. It has been tagged for transfer to the MDL pending in the
United States District Court, District of South Carolina.
* South Adams County Water & Sanitation District v. The 3M
Company et al., filed December 20, 2019, in the MDL pending in the
United States District Court, District of South Carolina.
* Town of Southampton v. The 3M Company et al., filed December
17, 2019, in the MDL pending in the United States District Court,
District of South Carolina.
In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water
and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may
assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
those products at the Peterson Air Force Base.
State Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF
In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al., No.
904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from
firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including
Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air
National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in
Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified
"other" sites throughout the State.
The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages
associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York and transferred to the MDL.
In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in
New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al.,
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at additional locations across New York.
This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In
July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al., (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA
contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at
further additional locations across New York.
This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In
November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in New
York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al., (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at further additional locations across New York.
This suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the
MDL.
In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No.
G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County,
Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of
the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly
resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified
and unspecified locations across Ohio.
The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages
associated with the contamination.
This lawsuit has been removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio and transferred to the MDL.
In addition, in May and June 2019, three other states filed
lawsuits in their respective state courts against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations
across their jurisdictions (State of New Hampshire v. The 3M
Company et al.; State of Vermont v. The 3M Company et al.; State of
New Jersey v. The 3M Company et al.). All three of these suits have
been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.
In September 2019, the government of Guam filed a lawsuit in the
superior court of Guam against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint
has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.
In November 2019, the government of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands filed a lawsuit in the superior court of
the Northern Mariana Islands against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Group, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint
has been removed to federal court and tagged for transfer to the
MDL.
AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology
Center in Marinette, Wisconsin
Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard are defendants in one lawsuit in
Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to the historical
use of AFFF products at Tyco's Fire Technology Center in Marinette,
Wisconsin. The putative class action, Joan & Richard Campbell for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tyco Fire
Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit
Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) alleges PFAS (including PFOA/PFOS)
contaminated groundwater migrated off Tycos property and into
residential drinking water wells causing both personal injuries and
property damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard removed this
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin and it has been transferred to the MDL.
A second lawsuit, Duane and Janell Goldsmith individually and on
behalf of H.G. and K.G v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc.,
et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) was
also filed by a family alleging personal injuries due to
contaminated groundwater; this case has been dismissed without
prejudice.
The Company is vigorously defending the above AFFF matters and
believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification
and the claims asserted. However, there are numerous factual and
legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it
is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial
exposure, if any, represented by these matters, but there can be no
assurance that any such exposure will not be material. The Company
is also pursuing insurance coverage for these matters.
Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.
KEURIG GREEN: Court Moves Hearing Date, Briefing Sked to March 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Administrative
Motion to Modify the Hearing Date and Briefing Schedule in the case
captioned 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.).
This matter came before the Court for hearing on Defendant Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc.'s Administrative Motion to modify the hearing
date and briefing schedule on Plaintiff's class certification
motion that was currently set for hearing on February 13, 2020.
Good cause having been shown, Defendant's Administrative Motion is
GRANTED, rules the Court. The hearing on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint, is continued to
March 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, of the
above-entitled Court located at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
California 94612.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 6, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/udw6pv5 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 Benjamin
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.
KMK CARE: Faces Taylor Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KMK Care Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Natessa Taylor, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KMK Care Enterprises, Inc., Does 1-50, Case
No. 34-2020-00274976-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
6, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment--Civil Unlimited."
Kmk Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Spivak, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
Encino, CA 91436-4578
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
KTDA HOLDINGS: Farmers File Class Action Suit Over Losses
---------------------------------------------------------
Benson Wambugu, writing for Daily Nation, reports that three
petitioners have lodged a class action suit against Kenya Tea
Development Agency Holdings Ltd and its affiliates over alleged
exploitation and subjecting them to economic hardships through
inefficiency and mismanagement.
Ashford Koome, Gibson Bundi and Patrick Muthuri, on behalf of tea
farmers in Meru County, have sued KTDA Holdings Ltd, KTDA
management Services Ltd, Kionyo Tea Factory and Greenland Fedha
Ltd. They want a thorough audit of the books of accounts as well as
an inspection of weighing bags and scales, arguing that those have
been used to exploit the farmers economically.
Kionyo Factory is a tea processing company based in Meru while
Greenland Fedha is a non-deposit-taking microfinance lender wholly
owned by KTDA Holdings.
The three petitioners are members and shareholders of Kionyo and in
extension shareholders of KTDA Holdings.
The High Court has directed KTDA and its affiliates to respond to
the petition for hearing and determination.
According to the suit papers, the trio says they have been
contracted by KTDA, which supplies them with green leaf weighing
bags, weighing scales and services, transportation, tea processing,
as well as conduct tea auction and marketing. And through
deductions on their tea earnings, they pay KTDA for goods and
services.
The petitioners argue that they are not only contractually
obligated to the shareholders for the supply of the goods and
services but KTDA also owes them a corresponding duty of care.
"But because of inefficiency, mismanagement, deliberate goods and
services overpricing or deceit, they have breached the terms of
their contracts and the plaintiffs' consumer rights.
"The defendants have also failed to secure and protect the
shareholders' economic interest and well-being, resulting in low
and stagnant monthly tea payments and erratic bonus payments in the
past five years," say the petitioners.
The farmers are also accusing KTDA of using fuel, which they term
as an outdated energy resource and supplying to them overpriced
fertiliser.
KTDA is further accused of using underweight weighing bags and
faulty weighing machines, leading to losses.
"They have failed to account to the petitioners and other farmers
the interest earned on their tea produce sales generally throughout
the year and in particular between June 30 when the financial year
closes and October 30, when ‘bonus' is actually paid to farmers,"
reads the petition.
They accuse Kionyo of selling their tea through a "sister company",
Imenti Tea Factory, which pays bonus at a higher rate than Kionyo
but pays the shareholders at a lower rate.
The tea farmers claim they have suffered massive financial losses
and violation of their consumer rights because of the breaches and
wrongful acts.
They say these acts can only be ascertained through independent
inspection and certification of the weighing bags and scales and
taking proper audit.
They want the court to declare that the growers' fertiliser and
personal insurance contracts are unilateral, skewed and unfair.
They are also seeking orders that the loan contract is unfair,
overpriced and oppressive.
The shareholders want to be at liberty to sell their produce to
buyers other than those affiliated to KTDA Holdings, without
interference or reprisals. They also ask the court to order an
inspection of the tea weighing bags and scales and an audit of the
bank and books of accounts.
The petition comes in the wake of claims by a legislator in
Kirinyaga County that cartels in KTDA were using faulty weighing
machines to exploit farmers. Gichumu Githinji, the Gichugu MP, said
farmers lose earnings because the weighing machines are adjusted,
with each farmer losing 1.5kg of produce delivered at tea buying
centres.
Recently, President Uhuru Kenyatta directed the Agriculture
ministry and the Competition Authority of Kenya to strip KTDA
directors of roles as a recourse aimed at recouping gains for tea.
[GN]
KUEHNE + NAGEL: Joromat Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Joromat, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC., a New York Corporation; and Does
1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00251 (Cal. Super., San
Bernardino Cty., Feb. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendants
to recover all unpaid wages and liquidated damages, plus attorney's
fees and costs under the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that he and others regularly worked time for
which the Defendants did not compensate them at a rate at no less
than the prevailing minimum wage. He asserts that he was a
non-exempt employee, and regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, 8 hours per workday, and/or more than 12 hours per workday,
and/or in excess of 7 consecutive days, but was not paid all
overtime wages and double time wages due and owing under California
law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2018 until
July 2019 as a non-exempt warehouse worker.
KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC. is a New York corporation authorized to do
business within the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Michael Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310)496-5818
Facsimile: (818) 700-9973
LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION: Ct. Denies Bid to Remand Russell Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand the case captioned TRAVIS RUSSELL, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION CASTING CORP., A/K/A LAMOTHERMIC CORP., AND
ANY RELATED ENTITIES Plaintiff, v. LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION CASTING
CORP., A/K/A LAMOTHERMIC CORP., MICHAEL STEELE, AND DANA CIULLO,
A/K/A DONNA CIULLO, in their representative capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-2310 (NSR), (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Travis Russell moved to remand his case back to state
court.
Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit pursuant to Article 9 of
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, on behalf of himself and
a putative class of individuals for violations of New York Labor
Law, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2
for damages in excess of $100,000.00, plus costs and attorneys'
fees, along with punitive and statutory damages.
Plaintiff maintains that the Notice of Removal filed by Defendants
was defective, and that Defendants were not entitled to remove the
action because they were in default in state court.
Plaintiff does not contest that, if a Notice of Removal were
properly filed, this Court would have federal question jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's FLSA claims and is authorized to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, which arise
from the same set of facts.
Plaintiff contends, however, that the Notice of Removal was
deficient for several reasons.
Plaintiff's primary challenge to the Notice of Removal is based on
Defendants' alleged default in responding to the Summons with
Notice, and, subsequently, the Verified Complaint. Plaintiff avers
that since Defendants did not respond to the Summons with Notice
and Verified Complaint within the timeframe specified by the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules, they lacked the ability to
remove the action to federal court.
Here, Plaintiff did not take any steps to hold Defendants in
default prior to removal, although he had ample time to do so
between Defendants alleged default in January 2019 and the filing
of the Notice of Removal in March 2019. Even if he had, that would
not, by itself, divest this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims. Defendants timely filed their Notice of Removal and
provided a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
along with the Summons with Notice and Verified Complaint, rules
the District Court.
That Defendants failed to attach Plaintiff's affidavits of service
to the Notice of Removal does not warrant remand. Nor does
Defendants' statement that the action was commenced by Verified
Complaint rather than by Summons with Notice, particularly because
Defendants provided the Court with a copy of the Summons with
Notice in their initial filing, says the Court.
Finally, there is no requirement that an attorney file a notice of
appearance in state court prior to filing a notice of removal.
Plaintiff points to no caselaw supporting his position that any of
the foregoing de minimis defects require a court to remand a case
that is otherwise properly removed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. To the extent
that Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants in default, the Court may
properly consider the merits of an appropriate application, if the
Plaintiff chooses to make one. However, the Court cautions
Plaintiff that given the facts currently presented to it, as well
as the strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits, such
an application is far from a guaranteed success.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to
state court is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 6, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rmyqcuo from
Leagle.com.
Travis Russell, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Lamothermic Precision
Casting Corp. a/k/a Lamothermic Corp., and any related entities,
Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Dana Youngwirth - bdy@cgrlaw.com -
Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, LLP.
Lamothermic Precision Casting Corp., also known as Lamothermic
Corp., Michael Steele, in their representative capacities & Dana
Ciullo, in their representative capacities, Defendants, represented
by Edmund C. Grainger, III - egrainger@mgslawyers.com - MC
CULLOUGH, GOLDBERGER & STAUDT.
LAWNSTARTER INC: Faces Shepardson TCPA Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LawnStarter, Inc. The
case is styled as Lance Dean Shepardson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. LawnStarter, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-00081-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Feb. 7, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
LawnStarter is an online marketplace that provides lawn maintenance
and outdoor services for consumers and lawn care
professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Brian Serbin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.
PO Box 2688
Hickory, NC 28603
Phone: (828) 327-9004
Fax: (704) 676-1094
Email: lserbin@jasonetaylor.com
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Faces Scheyer ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lehigh University, et
al. The case is captioned as DARCY LYNN SCHEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LEHIGH
UNIVERSITY, COMMUNITY VOICES CLINIC, and BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Case No. 5:20-cv-00322-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John M. Younge.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Lehigh University is a private research university in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. Lehigh was established in 1865 by businessman Asa
Packer. Community Voices Clinic is a school-based mental health
clinic operating within the family centers at Donegan Elementary
and Broughal Middle schools.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
MAINLAND SKATE: Faces Begg Suit in California Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mainland Skate &
Surf, Inc. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mainland Skate & Surf, Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00892 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mainland Skate and Surf is a leader in providing the latest
clothing, shoes, accessories, and gear for skateboarding, surfing
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
MALLINCKRODT ARD: Marietta City Sues Over Contract-Related Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mallinckrodt Ard LLC.
The case is styled as City of Marietta, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Mallinckrodt Ard LLC, formerly known
as: Mallinckrodt Ard, Inc., formerly known as: Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00552-CC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 6,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals is an Irish–tax registered
manufacturer of specialty pharmaceuticals (namely,
adrenocorticotropic hormone), generic drugs and imaging
agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Walter White, Esq.
HAYNIE LITCHFIELD CRANE & WHITE
222 Washington Ave.
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 422-8900
Fax: (770) 424-8900
Email: dwhite@hlw-law.com
MARION COUNTY, OR: Jail Over Detention Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russ Mcquaid, writing for Fox59, reports that it has been about
five years since Marion County Sheriff's Colonel James Martin has
had so much elbow room inside the Marion County Jail.
"We've had a drop in our population and that's about 300 beds, and
what that's allowed us to do is close down housing units like this
and do a full scale maintenance check of locks, windows, lights,
fix some plumbing and do a full repaint of the facility."
The cell blocks' last fix ups coincided with an influx of state
prisoners returning home to serve their sentences and crowd the
jail's population.
"The last four or five years it's been very hard and difficult
because of our number," said Martin. "We've had every bed filled,
and then sometimes we've had over capacity where we've exceeded our
capacity to a point where you can't get in here, and so it's made
it tough."
Martin stood in the middle of cellblock 2-T, typically home to 52
offenders deemed well behaved enough to be assigned to the jail's
general population.
Instead of being surrounded by offenders serving time or considered
too dangerous to release on bail, Martin surveyed a handful of
Building Authority employees who have been gradually making their
way through the jail, fixing typically crowded cell blocks in a
maintenance project set to wrap up in April.
"You can't effectively, efficiently run a jail with every bed
full," said Martin. "That's the misconception out there. You can't
do it. You have 'hard times' with 'keep separates' and
classification levels, it's impossible to fill every bed and go and
then do maintenance on the place."
Throughout its three downtown facilities, the Marion County Jail
can house 2,507 offenders.
Last Jan. 14, the number of inmates stood at 2,179, including 269
offenders serving their state prison sentences in the local jail.
"I think we are a lot further along as a city than we were five
years ago," said Martin, referring to recent bail and criminal
justice reform initiatives to incarcerate the most dangerous
offenders or those less likely to commit another crime while out
awaiting trial. "When we look at our booking numbers for '19, I
think we're a little under what we were for '18, and I think it's
just been faster processing, and we've had some other things come
along with automated bond schedules and some real improvement on
the speed on how we can get the job done."
Martin said a boost in starting salaries and the reassignment of
highly trained and better paid sheriff's deputies allowed Marion
County Sheriff Kerry Forestal to expand the number of detention
deputies on duty in the jail and enhance safety by reducing
overtime.
"We put on 110 detention deputies last year. In 2019, we lost about
32,"said Martin even though those deputies saw their starting
salaries increased twice to $36,000 per year. "With our hiring
campaign, we were able to bring more people in, which helped offset
that balance. We still had people leaving, but we're bringing the
people in."
The Marion County Sheriff's Office competes for employees not only
because of the state's low unemployment rate but also with suburban
sheriffs who can offer even better salaries for correction officers
overseeing fewer dangerous offenders.
For the past five years, MCSO has been the target of a class action
lawsuit brought by former offenders who contend they were illegally
held for hours and days beyond their ordered releases by Marion
County Superior Court judges.
In depositions as part of the federal lawsuit, sheriff's officials
admitted faulty software fixes to its inmate management system
contributed to the over detentions.
The lawsuit is still pending.
Martin said improved MCSO offender processing and bail reform that
qualifies more low level/low risk arrestees for pre-trial release
has reduced the jail population to better include the most
dangerous offenders and those with the greater potential to commit
another crime while awaiting trial. [GN]
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Suit Moved to District of South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Merle D. Russ and Ellen Russ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Marriott
Ownership Resorts, Inc.; Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation;
OceanWatch Villas Owners Association; Hardin Construction Company,
LLC; HKS, Inc.; Schmidt & Stacey Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Cayce
Company, Inc.; Royal Concrete, Inc.; Cartner Glass of Myrtle Beach,
Inc.; All Aspects, Inc.; ABG Caulking & Waterproofing of
Morristown, Inc.; TSG Industries, Inc., and First Exteriors, LLC,
Case No. 2019-CP-26-06405, was removed from the Horry County Court
of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina (Florence) on Jan. 17, 2020.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon. The
District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00187-SAL to the proceeding.
The lawsuit involves real property-related issues.
Marriott Ownership owns and operates resorts. The Company offers
villas, dining rooms, complementary breakfast, television, cruises,
and conference facilities. The OceanWatch Villas are affiliated
with the Marriott Vacation Club. Hardin Construction provides
construction services. HKS is an American international
architecture firm headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Schmidt & Stacy
was founded in 1992. Schmidt & Stacy's line of business includes
providing professional engineering services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Wylie, IV, Esq.
MULLEN LAW FIRM
PO Box 1980
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
Telephone: (843) 449-4800
Facsimile: (843) 497-0449
E-mail: rwylie@mullenwylie.com
- and -
James L Hills, Jr., Esq.
HILLS AND HILLS
4701 Oleander Drive
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
Telephone: (843) 626-2600
E-mail: jlhjr@hillsandhills.com
Defendants Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. and Marriott Resorts
Hospitality Corporation are represented by:
Donna Ojetta Tillis, Esq.
Robert C Calamari, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP (COLA)
Meridian Building, 17th Floor
1320 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 255-9327
E-mail: donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com
bob.calamari@nelsonmullins.com
Defendant HKS, Inc. is represented by:
John Patrick Turner Norris, Esq.
Kent T Stair, Esq.
Paul E. Sperry, Esq.
COPELAND STAIR KINGMA AND LOVELL LLP
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 266-8219
Facsimile: (843) 727-2995
E-mail: pnorris@cskl.law
kstair@cskl.law
psperry@cskl.law
Defendant Schmidt & Stacey Consulting Engineers, Inc. is
represented by:
Lawrence Bradley Orr, Esq.
ORR ELMORE AND ERVIN
PO Box 2527
Florence, SC 29503
Telephone: (843) 667-6613
Facsimile: (843) 667-0340
E-mail: lbo@orrfirm.com
Defendant First Exteriors, LLC is represented by:
James H. Elliott, Jr., Esq.
Francis Heyward Grimball, Esq.
RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON PA
PO Box 21203
Charleston, SC 29413
Telephone: (843) 805-6550
Facsimile: (843) 805-6599
E-mail: jelliott@richardsonplowden.com
fhgrimball@richardsonplowden.com
MARSH AND MCLENNAN: Kaufman Sues Over Use of Consumer Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKEYSHA KAUFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MARSH AND MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., a New York
Corporation; MARSH USA, INC., A New York Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV361891 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants routinely
acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on the
Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and
use information from consumer reports in connection with their
hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining
proper authorization in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The Plaintiff, who was jointly employed by the Defendants in the
State of California, seeks statutory damages due to the Defendants'
systematic and willful violations of the FCRA.
Marsh & McLennan is a global professional services firm,
headquartered in New York City with businesses in insurance
brokerage, risk management, reinsurance services, talent
management, investment advisory, and management consulting.[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
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
MAUSER USA: Valenzuela Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mauser USA, LLC and BWAY Corporation removed the case
captioned as RAMON VALENZUELA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. MAUSER USA, LLC, a limited liability company;
BWAY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MAUSER PACKAGING
SOLUTIONS, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 19CV-04847 (Filed Nov. 6, 2019), from the
Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Merced
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on Jan. 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00094-LJO-SAB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all
required overtime wages for overtime worked, to provide complete
and accurate wage statements, and to timely pay unpaid wages due at
the time of separation of employment, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Mauser USA designs, manufactures, and distributes plastic, metal,
fiber, and IBC industrial packing supplies. BWAY Corporation is a
holding company whose principal subsidiaries are leading
manufacturers of steel containers for the general line segment of
the North American steel industry.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles O. Thompson, Esq.
Philip I. Person, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415 655 1300
Facsimile: 415 707 2010
E-mail: thompsoncha@gtlaw.com
personp@gtlaw.com
MDL 1917: Puerto Rico vs. Panasonic Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL No. 1917, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL. v. PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01246, from the
District of Puerto Rico to the Northern District of California and,
with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Jon S.
Tigar for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (LGEUS) moves under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred
the Puerto Rico action to the Northern District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 1917. Plaintiff (the Government of Puerto
Rico) and defendants Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Philips North America LLC, Hitachi America, Ltd., and Toshiba
America Information Systems, Inc., oppose the motion.
In support of its motion, LGEUS primarily argues that transfer of
Puerto Rico is not appropriate because the MDL has reached an
advanced stage. This characterization undoubtedly is correct --
the Panel centralized this litigation in 2008. Even so,
significant efficiency and convenience benefits may yet be achieved
through the continued transfer of tag-along actions to MDL No.
1917. Many defendants in the MDL have resolved the claims against
them, but others have not. Furthermore, a new group of indirect
purchaser plaintiffs -- who seek to represent putative subclasses
of "non-repealer states" and "omitted repealer states" -- have
moved for leave to file new complaints in the MDL. If granted,
Puerto Rico would greatly benefit from coordination with those
actions. Perhaps most importantly, this has been an exceedingly
complex litigation, involving numerous defendants, significant
foreign discovery, and extensive motion practice. The Honorable
Jon S. Tigar has presided over this litigation since 2015 and is
best positioned to streamline discovery and motions practice in
Puerto Rico in light of the discovery and motions practice that
have been completed in the MDL.
While the Panel is of the opinion that efficiencies will be gained
by transferring Puerto Rico to the MDL at this time, it recognizes
that the litigation may soon reach a point at which related actions
may be more appropriately resolved in the courts in which they were
filed. If the transferee judge determines that Section 1407 remand
of any claim or action is appropriate, then he can suggest remand
with a minimum of delay.
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 1917, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that defendants --
manufacturers of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and products containing
CRTs -- conspired to fix prices of CRT products in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. Like the plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff
in Puerto Rico alleges that manufacturers of CRTs and CRT products
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRT
products sold in the United States. Although plaintiff asserts an
unjust enrichment claim rather than an antitrust claim, different
legal theories present no bar to transfer under Section 1407 where
common factual issues exist.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/ePb5Ja
MDL 2738: Denwiddie and Abram Suits Moved to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two
actions styled, DENWIDDIE, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:19-02652; and ABRAM, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET
AL., C.A. No. 4:19-02711, from the Eastern District of Missouri to
the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the two actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
oppose both motions. Defendants Cyprus Mines Corporation, Cyprus
Amax Minerals Company, PTI Royston, LLC, and PTI Union, LLC, oppose
the motion to vacate with respect to the Abram action.
In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that
federal subject matter jurisdiction over their actions is lacking,
and that plaintiffs' pending motions for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer. Judge Caldwell is not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument
that their jurisdictional objections should be treated differently
because remand purportedly is compelled under controlling case law.
The Panel regularly orders transfer of actions over similar
objections, consistent with the well-established principle that the
Panel lacks the authority under Section 1407 to decide questions
going to the jurisdiction or merits of a case. Plaintiffs can
present their remand arguments to the transferee judge.
Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, the Judge
finds that the actions involve common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and
Shower to Shower body powder). Both of the actions share multiple
questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/B9lKNI
MDL 2741: 6 Roundup Product Liability Suits Moved to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring six
actions listed on Schedule A to the Northern District of California
and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable
Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the six actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741.
Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motions. Defendant Helena
Agri-Enterprises, LLC, joins Monsanto's opposition with respect to
the Southern District of Alabama Moore action.
In support of their motions, plaintiffs in all six actions argue
that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their actions is
lacking, and that their motions for remand to state court should be
decided before transfer. Such jurisdictional issues generally do
not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs also argue that
transfer will cause them inconvenience, as they and their fact
witnesses reside in their respective filing jurisdictions, and will
delay the resolution of their remand motions. But transfer of an
action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of
the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience or delay. Plaintiffs can present
their remand arguments to the transferee judge.
Plaintiffs in three of the actions (Bodiford, Caruso, and Fazio)
argue that transfer is not appropriate because the MDL has reached
an advanced stage. This characterization remains inaccurate.
While much of the general discovery of Monsanto has been completed,
the transferee court is now organizing the actions for completion
of case-specific discovery and disposition of case-specific
dispositive and Daubert motions on a state-by-state basis before
remanding those actions to their transferor courts. The transferee
court has not suggested remand of any action to its transferor
court. Thus, significant efficiency and convenience benefits may
be achieved through the continued transfer of tag-along actions to
MDL No. 2741.
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell
finds that the actions involve common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. All of the actions share multiple factual
issues with the cases already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/k8xzN6
MDL 2800: Court Vacates Transfer Orders for 3 Data Security Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
vacating conditional transfer orders designated as "CTO-50,"
"CTO-54," and "CTO-55" insofar as they relate to three actions:
* in the Central District of California, JOHNSON v. EQUIFAX,
INC., C.A. No. 2:19-07986;
* in the Southern District of Indiana, GRANGER v. EQUIFAX, INC.,
C.A. No. 1:19-03679; and
* in the Eastern District of Virginia, SCHMIDT v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-01125.
Plaintiffs in the three actions, proceeding pro se, each move under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally
transferring their actions to MDL No. 2800. Defendants Equifax
Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC oppose the motions to
vacate.
These actions unquestionably are factually related to the MDL
proceedings, as they involve allegations, similar to those in the
MDL No. 2800 actions, that Equifax failed to adequately safeguard
plaintiffs' personally identifiable information, which was
compromised during the Equifax data breach. Based on the Panel's
review of the progress of this litigation, however, and after
consultation with the transferee judge, the Panel concludes that
inclusion of these consumer cases in MDL No. 2800 no longer is
necessary to achieve the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.
As Judge Caldwell has noted, the relative merits of transferring
new tag-along actions to an ongoing MDL can change over time as the
transferee court completes its primary tasks and cases already in
the centralized proceedings progress towards trial or other
resolution. The point at which the advantages of continuing to
transfer tag-along actions outweigh the disadvantages is never
absolutely clear, and necessarily will vary depending on the
circumstances of the particular MDL. After a certain point,
however, the benefits of transfer should not be assumed to
continue.
Thus, after considering the parties' arguments, the Judge grants
plaintiffs' motions to vacate. The Panel ordered centralization in
this docket in December 2017. In the more than two years that have
passed since then, the Panel has transferred to the MDL and the
parties have directly filed hundreds of tag-along actions, most
brought by or on behalf of consumers (several of them proceeding
pro se),and others brought by financial institutions. The
transferee judge, the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, has been ably
handling the many challenges posed by this multi-faceted
litigation. He has established separate tracks within the
litigation for discovery and other pretrial proceedings, presided
over common discovery, and ruled on motions to dismiss. On January
13, 2020, he granted final approval of a consumer class settlement.
The litigation, in other words, is quite mature, and adding more
consumer cases to the MDL at this time, in the Panel's view, would
delay its resolution unnecessarily.
In reaching this conclusion, Judge Caldwell observes that the
presiding judges in the three actions before the Panel may find
useful guidance in Judge Thrash's pretrial rulings. Further,
though the Panel is denying transfer, it nevertheless encourage the
parties to pursue various alternative approaches, should the need
arise, to minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and
inconsistent pretrial rulings.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8nzl4C
MDL 2804: 22 Prescription Opiate Suits Transferred to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 22
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in 22 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order,
the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.
Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. The
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.
The plaintiffs opposing transfer in 20 actions argue principally
that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But
opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is
insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually
related cases. Several plaintiffs also argue that including their
actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay
the progress of their actions. Given the undisputed factual overlap
with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to
facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.
Plaintiff in the Southern District of West Virginia Harris action,
an individual action for personal injuries brought by a minor who
was born addicted to opiates, opposes transfer by arguing that
Harris is unique. But the Panel has transferred to the MDL several
similar actions that involve infants suffering from Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). Moreover, the Panel denied a motion to
create a separate MDL for NAS infants in December 2018 in favor of
transferring such cases to the MDL. That Harris is a personal
injury action and not a class action like other NAS infant cases
also should not preclude transfer. The Panel has transferred other
personal injury actions to the MDL because they share common
factual assertions about marketing and distribution of prescription
opiates with the class actions in the MDL.
Plaintiff in the Middle District of Tennessee Rhodes action also
asserts that his case is unique and should be excluded from the
MDL. Rhodes is a putative multistate class action for indirect
consumer losses in the purchase of prescription opiates. Plaintiffs
who purchased opiates using a valid prescription claim they would
not have absent the manufacturer defendants' alleged
misrepresentations about the addiction risks of the drugs. Numerous
MDL plaintiffs base their complaints on alleged manufacturer
misrepresentations as to these risks. Where, as here, "common
factual issues exist, . . . the presence of different legal
theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization."
Should the need arise, the transferee judge can accommodate any
unique discovery needs that this case presents.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/HpBOuf
MDL 2804: Court Remands 2 Prescription Opiate Suits in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order remanding the
following actions pending in the Northern District of Ohio:
* THE CHEROKEE NATION v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:18-45695 (E.D. Oklahoma, C.A. No. 6:18-00056), remanded to the
Eastern District of Oklahoma; and
* CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMAL.P.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-45022 (N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:18-07591),
remanded to the Northern District of California.
Defendants move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the Panel's order
that conditionally remanded two actions to the Eastern District of
Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation) and the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The Panel placed these actions on a conditional
remand order after receiving the transferee judge's suggestion of
remand. Plaintiffs to the actions oppose the motions.
After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel finds that
remand of these action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 is warranted.
As an initial matter, "[i]n considering the question of remand, the
Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge's
determination that remand of a particular action at a particular
time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all,
supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings."
In his suggestion of remand, the transferee judge, the Honorable
Dan A. Polster, states:
"What the Court has learned is that, if it proceeds with the
bellwether trial process as it has so far, it will simply take too
long to reach each category of plaintiff and defendant, much less
each individual plaintiff and defendant. Meanwhile, the Opioid
Crisis shows no sign of ending. Accordingly, the Court asked the
parties to submit proposals regarding limited, strategic remands of
specific cases, in order to allow other federal judges to help
resolve specific portions of the Opiate MDL in parallel. The Court
suggested, for example, that there could be a remand of: (1) a case
focused on manufacturers; (2) a case focused on distributors; (3) a
case focused on pharmacies; (4) a case brought by an Indian Tribe;
and so on.
"Unsurprisingly, the parties' proposals did not agree, although
there was some meaningful overlap. For example, there was a
consensus that City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which focuses
on manufacturer defendants, should be remanded to the transferor
court in the Northern District of Illinois, although the parties
disagreed on whether remand should be immediate or instead after
additional discovery and motion practice.
"Having reviewed carefully all of the parties' proposals, the
undersigned believes resolution of substantial portions of the
Opiate MDL will be speeded up and aided by strategic remand of
certain cases at this time, and very probably additional strategic
remands in the future. While the transferor courts preside over
these cases on remand, the undersigned will be working in parallel,
trying other segments of the case and also pursuing global
settlements."
In opposing remand, defendants generally argue that Judge Polster
violated the principles he articulated at an initial hearing at
which he discussed the concept of remand: (1) facilitating global
settlements, (2) preparing and trying "streamlined" cases for
trial, and (3) effectively utilizing the resources of the court and
its staff. Defendants place undue emphasis on these initial
thoughts. While they raise some practical concerns about
proceeding with these particular bellwether actions, defendants'
arguments invite the Panel to second-guess the transferee judge's
elaborate bellwether remand plan. The Panel declines their
invitation to do so. The transferee judge chose the cases now
before the Panel in the absence of agreement among the parties
following argument and extensive briefing.
With respect to Cherokee Nation, distributor defendants assert that
the size of Cherokee Nation, its governance structure and its
patchwork of territory that touches fourteen Oklahoma counties
makes it a less than ideal bellwether candidate. They further
argue that Cherokee Nation's claims may be impacted by the appeal
of a prior trial verdict in Oklahoma that resulted in an abatement
award against an opioid manufacturer. But defendants raised these
concerns with Judge Polster and failed to persuade him to choose a
smaller tribal case. Judge Polster noted, in his Suggestion of
Remand, that the case was the consensus pick of the Indian Tribe
leadership committee and was from a different jurisdiction than the
Track One (Ohio)and Track Two (West Virginia) cases.
Defendants oppose remand of San Francisco because the pendency of
California state court cases may cause conflicting rulings on
certain claims and generate double recoveries. Further, they note
that the California Attorney General has threatened to assume
control of opioid cases brought by municipalities. They also
object to the cost of proceeding with a large case such as San
Francisco. Plaintiffs respond that San Francisco offers geographic
diversity to the bellwether pool and that any potential overlap
with the state court proceedings can be managed. Plaintiffs also
point out that San Francisco is the only bellwether trial to date
offering the potential trial of a civil RICO claim. In selecting
San Francisco as a bellwether, Judge Polster observed that the case
names manufacturer, distributor and pharmacy defendants -- many of
whom have completed or nearly completed global discovery -- and
also was from a jurisdiction different from prior bellwethers.
Among the nearly 2,700 cases in the MDL, there may be ones that
could be tried without posing the same challenges defendants now
argue that San Francisco and Cherokee Nation may pose. It is
beyond the Panel's purview, however, to select cases for bellwether
remand and trial. Given the deference that the Panel traditionally
affords a transferee judge's remand suggestion, and considering
that the transferee judge "reviewed carefully all of the parties'
proposals," the Panel sees no reason to second-guess his selection
of these two cases for bellwether remand and trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Remand Order is
available at https://is.gd/WFAys5
MDL 2804: Transfer Order for Arlington County Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional
transfer order designated as "CTO-122" with respect to the action,
THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. MALLINCKRODT
PLC,ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-01446.
Plaintiff in an Eastern District of Virginia action (Arlington
County) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring its action to the Northern District of
Ohio for inclusion in MDL No. 2804. Defendants oppose the motion
to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell grants
the motion to vacate. Without doubt, the action shares factual
questions with the other MDL cases. But Judge Anthony J. Trenga
granted plaintiff's motion to remand to state court on January 3,
2020, finding that there was no federal officer removal
jurisdiction over the action. (Judge Trenga previously remanded
the action after finding that diversity jurisdiction did not exist
on May 6, 2019). The action is currently stayed, at a minimum,
until the Fourth Circuit rules on the motion to stay defendants are
expected to soon file before that court. Transferring Arlington
County to the MDL at this time would undermine efficiency by
complicating its procedural posture. If Arlington County remains
in federal court, the parties should renotify the Panel of the
action's status as a potential tag-along action.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/M2wkTx
MDL 2873: Bid to Move Hardwick v. 3M to South Carolina Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to
transfer the action styled HARDWICK v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
2:18-01185 from the Southern District of Ohio to the District of
South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Several defendants in the Southern District of Ohio Hardwick action
move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer Hardwick to the
District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Plaintiff opposes the motion.
MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Before the
Panel centralized this docket, Hardwick was noticed as a
potentially related action. Plaintiff in Hardwick asserts claims
against various manufacturers of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS, an umbrella term that includes PFOS and PFOA) on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of all individuals with a detectable
level of PFAS in their blood. Plaintiff primarily seeks as relief
the creation of an independent panel of scientists to study and
evaluate health effects or illnesses, if any, caused by PFAS
exposure. The Hardwick complaint contains few mentions of AFFFs.
When the Panel centralized this docket, the Judge denied a motion
by 3M to extend the scope of the MDL to encompass not just cases
involving AFFFs, but all cases relating to 3M's manufacture,
management, disposal, and sale of PFAS. Plaintiff in Hardwick
sought inclusion in the proposed "PFAS MDL," while defendants
opposed including Hardwick in the MDL.
At oral argument on the centralization motions, counsel for
defendant Daikin America, Inc., described Hardwick thusly:
"Hardwick doesn't involve groundwater, it doesn't involve AFFF;
Hardwick is simply a question about the curiosity of an individual
plaintiff who says, There is some part of this chemical in my
blood, and I'd like to know if I may be at risk. And I'd want a
class action, a nonopt-out [Fed.R.Civ.P.] (b)(2) class action on
behalf of all Americans to determine not whether I am injured or
whether they are injured, but, rather, how the determination of
general causation should be made. He wants to have a scientific
panel appointed to determine which diseases are caused by exposure
to these chemicals, and then to have that binding in any litigation
thereafter."
After the Panel centralized MDL No. 2873, the Panel Clerk
determined that Hardwick was not appropriate for inclusion in the
MDL.
In support of their motion to transfer, defendants now offer a
different characterization of Hardwick -- as an individual action
for medical monitoring by a single firefighter allegedly exposed to
PFAS contained in AFFF products. Defendants point to two
paragraphs of the complaint that actually reference AFFFs: one
describes plaintiff's background as a firefighter and his potential
exposure to AFFFs; the other discusses the various means by which
defendants promoted PFAS use. Defendants also contend that the
Hardwick court's recent decision denying their motions to dismiss
makes clear that plaintiff seeks only "traditional medical
monitoring," thus rendering his case no different than other
medical monitoring cases in the MDL. Defendants argue that
discovery concerning AFFF contamination sites and issues will be
necessary in Hardwick and, therefore, that transfer to MDL No. 2873
is appropriate.
Judge Caldwell does not find this new characterization of Hardwick
persuasive. The focus of Hardwick is entirely on PFAS, with only
two tangential references to AFFFs. There are no claims directed
to AFFF products or AFFF manufacturers (at least, not with respect
to their manufacture of AFFF products). Moreover, the claims in
Hardwick explicitly apply to all forms of PFAS, whereas only two of
these (PFOA and PFOS) are alleged to have been used in AFFF
products. Plaintiff also seeks relief -- in the form of a "PFAS
science panel" -- that is not sought by plaintiffs in the MDL. In
short, Hardwick is not an AFFF action of the type encompassed by
MDL No. 2873.
None of the proceedings in Hardwick to date undermine this
conclusion. Although defendants characterize Hardwick as an
"individual action," the Hardwick court has not yet considered
whether plaintiff's proposed class can be certified. Nor did the
court hold that plaintiff's claims are limited to "traditional"
forms of medical monitoring, but rather that medical monitoring
encompasses the unique relief that plaintiff seeks.
Furthermore, the Panel's past practice in this docket weighs
against transferring Hardwick to MDL No. 2873. The Panel has
transferred several actions in which plaintiffs allege multiple
sources of PFOS and PFOA contamination, including from the use of
AFFFs. The Panel has not, though, transferred to the MDL actions
that do not contain any allegations or claims relating to AFFF use.
Indeed, the Panel recently denied transfer of an action,
Middlesex, in which the claims were "directed at 3M and its
manufacture, marketing, and sales of PFOS and PFOA, not its
manufacture of AFFF products."
In that order, the Panel expressed its concern that broadening the
scope of MDL No. 2873 beyond AFFFs could render the litigation
unwieldy:
"[W]e have no desire to unnecessarily complicate the transferee
judge's task inefficiently managing this litigation, which already
involves a wide range of claims and parties. Given our continued
concern about the manageability of this litigation, a party seeking
transfer of an action that does not on its face raise AFFF claims
bears a significant burden to persuade us that transfer is
appropriate and will not undermine the efficient progress of the
AFFF MDL."
Like Middlesex, the Hardwick complaint does not on its face raise
AFFF claims, and defendants have not carried their "significant
burden" to persuade the Panel that transfer of this non-AFFF action
is appropriate. To the contrary, transferring Hardwick would
introduce the additional "site-specific issues, different modes of
PFAS contamination, and different PFAS chemicals" that concerned
the Panel when it declined to include non-AFFF actions in the MDL.
According to the Court, Defendants' prediction that discovery in
Hardwick will substantially overlap with discovery conducted in the
MDL is speculative. The Hardwick court only recently denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, and no discovery has
taken place. When defendant Daikin America, Inc., opposed
including Hardwick in the MDL during briefing on the initial
motions to centralize this litigation, counsel suggested that any
discovery relating to AFFFs would be minimal. Defendants' current
suggestions otherwise are not convincing. To the extent there is
any potential for duplicative discovery, such overlaps -- given the
stark differences between Hardwick and the actions in the MDL --
are best minimized through coordination between the parties and the
involved courts. And, should Hardwick evolve into an AFFF case,
the parties or the court at that time can re-notice Hardwick as a
potential tag-along in MDL No. 2873.
The Moving defendants include: Arkema, Inc.; Arkema France, S.A.;
Daikin Industries, Ltd.; Daikin America, Inc.; E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company; The Chemours Company, LLC; Solvay Specialty
Polymers USA, LLC; and 3M Company.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5dKU6x
MDL 2913: 5 Juul Labs Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring five actions to the Northern District
of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
the Honorable William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in four actions (Bentley, State of Illinois, Beyer, and
Chaney) and defendant Schwartz E-Liquid LLC in a fifth action (May)
separately move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders
conditionally transferring the actions to the Northern District of
California for inclusion in MDL No. 2913. Defendant JUUL Labs,
Inc. (JLI) opposes all five motions to vacate. Defendants Altria
Group, Inc.,and Philip Morris USA Inc., which are sued only in
Bentley, oppose the motion as to that action.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that these five actions involve common questions of fact with
actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL
share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine
addiction." Plaintiffs and defendant Schwartz do not dispute that
their actions implicate those same questions.
In arguing against transfer, moving plaintiffs all cite the
pendency of remand motions in their actions. The Panel
consistently has held, however, that jurisdictional objections are
not an impediment to transfer. The assertions of the Chaney and
State of Illinois plaintiffs that transfer would cause them
inconvenience or delay the progress of their actions are
unavailing. The Panel considers the convenience of the parties and
witnesses as a whole in deciding the issue of transfer.
The State of Illinois plaintiff's argument that its action is a
government enforcement action that implicates sovereignty concerns
is not persuasive. The Panel routinely transfers such actions
under Section 1407. And the Panel has rejected the argument that a
sovereign entity should not be subject to Section 1407 transfer
because transfer might impinge on its ability to be represented by
its chosen counsel. Although there may be some issues unique to
State of Illinois, discovery in the action and the other actions in
the MDL will overlap significantly. Transfer thus almost certainly
will produce efficiencies. And, of course, if the transferee judge
at some point determines that the action should proceed outside the
MDL, he is free to suggest Section 1407 remand.
Defendant Schwartz's arguments against transfer of May are not
convincing. Like plaintiffs already in the MDL, the May plaintiff
alleges that because of defendants' "deceptive, false and
misleading claims in its advertising," he purchased and used
defendants' products "without being advised that they were highly
addictive and contained hazardous toxic chemicals and posed a
severe health risk." The presence of additional defendants in the
action does not bar transfer, because "[t]ransfer under Section
1407 does not require a complete identity of parties." Other
e-cigarette companies, including Eonsmoke, LLC, Imperial Brands,
and Reynolds American Inc., already are defendants in the MDL. In
any event, the seemingly indivisible nature of plaintiff's claims
renders a partial transfer (i.e., transferring only plaintiff's
claims against JLI and separating and remanding the claims against
the other defendants) impracticable. The transferee judge has the
discretion to employ separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial
techniques to address any issues specific to the non-JLI
defendants, including confidentiality concerns such as those raised
by Schwartz. The May plaintiff's allegation that he developed
"popcorn lung" through use of defendants' products also does not
warrant vacatur, because, as JLI points out, a number of actions in
the MDL involve allegations of serious health complications,
including lung injuries. Finally, the Panel rejects Schwartz's
argument that May should not be transferred because Schwartz's
insurance policy may not cover its MDL-related defense costs. The
Panel generally does not consider a party's ability to fund the
prosecution or defense of an action in determining the propriety of
Section 1407 transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2020 Transfer Order,
including a list of the cases to be transferred, is available at
https://is.gd/DFiyoj
MDL 2923: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 VeroBlue Farms Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VEROBLUE FARMS USA, INC., LITIGATION, MDL No.
2923, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied a motion for Section 1407
centralization of two actions into the Northern District of
Illinois.
The two actions are:
* VEROBLUE FARMS USA, INC. v. WULF, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-06542
(Northern District of Illinois)
* VEROBLUE FARMS USA, INC. v. WULF, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-03047
(Northern District of Iowa)
Respondents to subpoenas in the two actions challenging those
subpoenas move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this
dispute in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in the
Northern District of Texas action in which the subpoenas arose,
Veroblue Farms USA, Inc., supports centralization in the Northern
District of Iowa.
After considering all arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell
concludes that Section 1407 centralization of this litigation is
not necessary.
The actions involve nearly identical motions to quash that largely
concern respondents' interactions with the founders of VeroBlue
Farms, a sustainable fish farm in Webster City, Iowa, that was once
one of the world's largest land-based producers of barramundi.
VeroBlue alleges in its Northern District of Texas case that the
former founders of VeroBlue and other conspirators misappropriated
through numerous schemes or otherwise squandered over US$90,000,000
in debt or equity that others had invested in VeroBlue. In
particular, VeroBlue alleges that the founders' paid themselves
inappropriately large salaries, made a series of material
misrepresentations about key metrics in the aquaculture industry
(such as feed/fish conversion ratio, mortality, density of fish per
tank, water quality and other metrics used to determine
profitability), as well as made multiple false assertions about
their technical abilities to run a sustainable fish farm operation.
VeroBlue also alleges that defendants unsuccessfully (and
improperly) sought to have its Northern District of Texas case
dismissed via its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and that
respondents here may have knowledge about that chapter of
defendants' alleged misconduct.
In litigation such as this, where only a few actions are involved,
the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. Movants have
failed to carry that burden. They have not persuaded the Judge
that creating an MDL is necessary for these two cases.
Resolution of these two cases likely will hinge on legal questions
(such as issues of privilege, the temporal scope of discovery in
the Northern District of Texas complaint, and whether the doctrine
of res judicata bars the current subpoenas). But common legal
questions do not satisfy Section 1407's requirement of common
factual questions. Although movants seek efficiencies through
centralized treatment of their motions to quash, "[m]erely to avoid
[different] federal courts having to decide the same issue is, by
itself, usually not sufficient to justify Section 1407
centralization."
Thus, despite the parties' agreement that centralization is proper,
the Judge is not convinced that resolution of the present motions
to quash will be so time-consuming or that any discovery underlying
the issue of enforcing the subpoenas will be so complex as to
justify creating a novel, limited-purpose MDL. If needed as this
litigation progresses, various mechanisms are available to minimize
or eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery in the
absence of an MDL. Here, the parties can agree to proceed in a
single forum; indeed, the seeds of cooperation already are evident
-- the respondents filed omnibus motions to quash in both actions
and all parties agreed that the litigation should proceed in one
court.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/csDI1e
MDL 2924: 15 Zantac Product Liability Suits Moved to Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring 15 actions to the Southern District of Florida and,
with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable
Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiffs in five actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on Schedule A
in the District of New Jersey or, alternatively, the Southern
District of Florida. This litigation consists of 15 actions
pending in nine districts. Plaintiffs in all of the actions allege
that the heartburn medication Zantac -- and specifically the
ranitidine molecule, its active ingredient -- breaks down to form
an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Nine
of these actions are brought by individual plaintiffs asserting
personal injury claims. Six are brought on behalf of putative
classes of consumers seeking refunds and other economic damages
stemming from their purchases of Zantac. In addition to the
actions on the motion, the parties have notified the Panel of 126
related actions pending in 21 districts.
With one exception, all parties support centralization, but
disagree as to the transferee district for this litigation. In
their papers, plaintiffs proposed a number of transferee districts,
either in the first instance or in the alternative, including the
Central District of California, the Northern District of
California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District
of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern
District of Mississippi, the District of New Jersey, the Southern
District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, and the
Eastern District of Tennessee. At oral argument, however, most
plaintiffs appeared to have coalesced around the Southern District
of Florida as their first choice for transferee district. The
common defendants -- each of which manufactured, sold, or
distributed Zantac -- support centralization in the District of New
Jersey or, alternatively, in the Southern District of New York.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Caldwell finds that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District
of Florida will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
ranitidine, the active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn
medications, can form the carcinogen NDMA, either during storage or
when metabolized in the human body. Plaintiffs uniformly allege
that the manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of Zantac and
other ranitidine medications knew or should have known that these
medications exposed consumers to NDMA, and that defendants
concealed the NDMA-associated dangers posed to consumers by these
products. General causation issues, in particular, likely will be
common across all the actions and would benefit greatly from
coordinated treatment. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with
respect to class certification and Daubert motion practice); and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
Furthermore, the centralized proceedings should include both the
related personal injury actions, in which plaintiffs allege that
they developed cancer as a result of NDMA formed from Zantac, and
the related consumer class actions, in which plaintiffs allege that
they suffered economic losses as a result of defendants' alleged
concealment of the NDMA-associated dangers posed by Zantac. The
core factual issues in the personal injury actions will be the same
as in the consumer class actions -- in particular, how ranitidine
allegedly forms NDMA; the nature and extent of the health risks
posed by NDMA and the NDMA levels at issue; defendants' knowledge
of the NDMA-associated risks of ranitidine; and the impact of any
findings made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is
investigating this issue. There also are significant overlaps
among defendants in both the personal injury and consumer class
actions. Including both types of actions in the MDL will result in
significant efficiencies.
The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee
district for this litigation. A large number of Zantac actions are
pending in the Southern District of Florida, which is supported by
the majority of responding plaintiffs. The district is a
relatively convenient and accessible forum, with the resources and
the capacity to efficiently handle what could be a large
litigation. Additionally, centralization before the Honorable
Robin L. Rosenberg allows the Panel to assign this litigation to an
able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an
MDL. Judge Caldwell is confident that Judge Rosenberg will steer
this litigation on an efficient and prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 6, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/lamkSa
MDL 2925: 31 Rail Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suits Moved to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 2925, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring 31 actions pending in 16 districts to the
District Court for the District of Columbia and, with the consent
of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Beryl A. Howell for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Defendants BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company,
CSX Transportation, Inc., and Norfolk Southern Railway Company move
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize the actions on this motion
in a new MDL in the District of District of Columbia before the
Honorable Paul L. Friedman or, alternatively, the Southern District
of Texas. Defendants alternatively request transfer of these
actions to MDL No. 1869 - In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, which is pending before Judge Friedman.
Defendants' motion includes 31 actions pending in 16 districts. The
Panel also has been notified of 18 potentially-related actions
filed in five districts.
Plaintiffs in all constituent actions and nine District of District
of Columbia potential tag-along actions oppose creation of a new
MDL and support inclusion of all actions in MDL No. 1869.
Plaintiffs in eight of these cases alternatively support creation
of a new MDL in District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in 26
of the cases alternatively oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge
Caldwell finds that centralization under Section 1407 of all
actions in the District of District of Columbia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. No party disputes that, like
the MDL No. 1869 actions, the actions now before the Panel share
factual issues arising from allegations that defendants conspired
to fix prices of rail fuel surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act for rail freight transportation pursuant to private
contracts and other means exempt from federal rate regulation.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
While they share questions of fact with the actions in MDL No.
1869, these newly-filed actions are in a significantly different
procedural posture than the MDL No. 1869 actions. The Panel,
therefore, is not persuaded that they should be included in that
litigation. MDL No. 1869 was centralized in 2007 and, since then,
the transferee court has presided over common discovery and issued
multiple substantive rulings on a variety of pretrial matters,
including rulings on motions to dismiss and for class
certification. After two appeals, the actions remaining in the MDL
are proceeding on an individual basis and, save for some limited
discovery and motions practice, appear to be near completion of
pretrial proceedings. In contrast, the actions before the Panel are
in the earliest stages and have been pending at most four months.
As the Panel has noted, the relative merits of transferring new
tag-along actions to an ongoing MDL can change over time as the
transferee court completes its primary tasks and cases already in
the centralized proceedings progress towards trial or other
resolution. The point at which the advantages of continuing to
transfer tag-along actions outweigh the disadvantages is never
absolutely clear, and necessarily will vary depending on the
circumstances of the particular MDL. After a certain point,
however, the benefits of transfer should not be assumed to
continue. See id. Moreover, even when those benefits may still
exist with respect to the particular tag-along action in question,
the Panel must always consider the impact that transfer of that
action could have on the cases already in the MDL. Based on the
Panel's review of the progress of this litigation, and after
consultation with the MDL No. 1869 transferee judge, Judge Caldwell
concludes that inclusion of these actions in that MDL would not
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, because
they threaten to significantly hinder the resolution of the
already-centralized actions.
Plaintiffs opposing centralization, in the event that the Panel
does not include these actions in MDL No. 1869, argue that they
will have access to the full discovery record developed in MDL No.
1869,and that any remaining discovery in the new cases will be very
limited and case-specific. But while the remaining discovery may be
case-specific, much of it may rely on common experts. Moreover,
most, if not all, actions will involve common pretrial motions,
including motions for summary judgment. Centralization, therefore,
will provide efficiencies and limit inconsistent rulings.
Judge Caldwell finds that the District of District of Columbia is
the appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Centralization in this district will allow Judge Friedman and the
MDL No. 2925 transferee judge to coordinate with ease pretrial
proceedings where they might overlap. The Panel assigns the
litigation to the Honorable Beryl A. Howell, a skilled jurist who
has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 6, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/BLzD1N
MDL 2927: Court Denies Defendants' Bid to Centralize 4 Patent Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZEROCLICK, LLC, ('691 & '443) PATENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2927, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Defendants' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of five
action into the patent litigation in the Northern District of
California.
Microsoft Corporation and Dell Technologies Inc., which are
defendants in two actions in the Western District of Texas, move
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in
this patent litigation in the Northern District of California. The
litigation consists of four actions in the Western District of
Texas and one action in the Northern District of California.
Patentholder Zeroclick, LLC (Zeroclick), which is the sole
plaintiff in the Texas actions and the sole defendant in the
California action, opposes centralization. HP Inc., the plaintiff
in the California action, consents to centralization in the
Northern District of California, as do defendants Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.,
which are sued in one of the Texas actions.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Judge
concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. The five actions share factual issues
involving one or both of two related Zeroclick patents concerning
graphical user interfaces: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,818,691 ('691 patent)
and 8,549,443 ('443 patent). Centralization thus might, to some
extent, avoid duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings,
and conserve the resources of the parties and the judiciary.
There are, however, only five actions pending in two districts, and
the four Texas actions are all before the same judge. Further, HP,
which, as mentioned, is the plaintiff in the California action, is
represented by the same counsel representing Microsoft and Dell.
Indeed, the multidistrict character of this litigation exists only
because HP brought its declaratory judgment action against
Zeroclick in the Northern District of California rather than the
Western District of Texas. These circumstances -- the small number
of actions, minimal number of districts, and presence of common
counsel -- suggest that alternatives to centralization are
practicable, and that formal centralization under Section 1407 is
not necessary.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Ly1Yaa
MDL 2928: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 21 Trafficking Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: HOTEL INDUSTRY SEX TRAFFICKING LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2928, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion for the
centralization of 21 actions pending in 12 districts.
Plaintiffs in six actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio. This
litigation consists of 21 actions pending in 12 districts. Since
the filing of the motion for centralization, the Panel has been
notified of 17 related actions. Plaintiffs in all actions allege
that they are victims of sex trafficking that occurred at hotel
properties located across the country and that the involved hotel
defendants are liable for damages under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 ("TVPRA"), 18 U.S.C. Section
1595, and, in some instances, state law.
Responding plaintiffs in five actions on the motion and six
potential tag-along actions support centralization, but disagree on
the appropriate transferee district, variously proposing the
Southern District of Ohio, the Southern District of Texas, the
Eastern District of New York, and the District of Minnesota as
their preferred or alternative choice. Plaintiffs in four actions
on the motion oppose centralization and, alternatively, request the
Northern District of Georgia. Nineteen anti-sex trafficking
organizations provided their views in two amicus briefs -- one
opposing centralization, and the other supporting centralization.
The defendants are mainly hotel brand franchisors, franchisees,
other individual hotel owners and operators, and related entities.
Of the 45 responding defendants, 38 defendants oppose
centralization, including brand defendants Best Western, Choice,
Extended Stay America, Hilton, Hyatt, Inter-Continental, Marriott,
and Wyndham. In the event that centralization is granted over
their objections, they variously suggest the Southern District of
Texas, the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of
Ohio, the Northern District of California, and the District of
Massachusetts. Six defendants take no position on centralization
and, in the alternative, suggest the Northern District of Georgia.
One defendant, Red Roof Asset, LLC, supports centralization in the
Northern District of Georgia.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge
Caldwell concludes that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Movants rely on broad
similarities among the actions to support their request for
centralization, emphasizing similar alleged failures by hotels to
prevent sex trafficking and the importance of corporate
responsibility. More specifically, they argue that all plaintiffs
were victims of commercial sex trafficking at one or more hotels,
that defendants knew or should have known that plaintiffs were
being trafficked, and that defendants participated and knowingly
financially benefitted by renting rooms to the alleged traffickers
in violation of the TVPRA. The Judge recognizes the seriousness of
these allegations and are sympathetic to counsel's concern for the
fair treatment of victims. But the concerns they have raised do
not satisfy the requirements of Section 1407. The vast majority of
actions involve different hotels, with the sole exception of the
four Jane Doe actions in the Northern District of Georgia. Apart
from the Georgia actions, each action involves different alleged
sex trafficking ventures, different hotel brands, different owners
and employees, different geographic locales, different witnesses,
different indicia of sex trafficking, and different time periods.
Thus, unique issues concerning each plaintiff's sex trafficking
allegations predominate in these actions. Indeed, there is no
common or predominant defendant across all actions, further
indicating a lack of common questions of fact.
Plaintiffs contend that the assertion of a common claim for relief
under the TVPRA is sufficient to warrant centralization as there
are common questions as to the statute's interpretation,
particularly as to the scope of the brand defendants' duties under
the TVPRA and the standard for liability. But "[c]ommon legal
questions are insufficient to satisfy Section 1407's requirement of
common factual questions."
Plaintiffs also assert that the number of actions is likely to
expand substantially, referring to potentially 1,500 additional
actions. But the mere possibility of additional actions does not
support centralization, even where thousands of actions are
predicted. Moreover, the Panel's decision to deny centralization
in this matter is not based on an insufficient number of actions,
but rather the lack of common factual questions in this
litigation.
In these circumstances, informal coordination is preferable to
address any overlapping pretrial proceedings. The record before
the Panel indicates such coordination is practicable. For example,
where multiple related actions are pending in a single district,
the parties may request that the actions be organized before a
single judge, as has occurred in the Southern District of Ohio and
the Northern District of Georgia. Several of the brand defendants
support informal coordination, suggesting that the parties could
stipulate that discovery in one action may be used in other actions
where the same brand is involved. Additionally, there are a
limited number of overlapping plaintiffs' counsel in the majority
of actions before the Panel, making them well-positioned to
facilitate informal coordination.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/S1gepn
MED SHIELD: Morton Sues in S.D. Indiana Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MED SHIELD, INC. The
case is styled as George Morton, Anitra Terry, Debra Williams, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MED
SHIELD, INC. doing business as: M.S.I. CREDIT & COLLECTION, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00447-RLY-TAB (E.D. Ind., Feb. 7, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Med Shield, Inc. provides healthcare debt recovery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
6100 North Keystone Ave., Suite 620
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Phone: (317) 255-2600
Fax: (317) 255-2905
Email: rshea@sawinlaw.com
MENARD INC: Faces Childers Suit in Wisc. Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menard, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Amy Childers, Barry Earls, Thomas Fetsch,
Cody Italia, David Kiel, Nazar Mansoor, Debbie Rider, Trent Shores,
Steve Schussler, Cassie Lietaert, Ryan Ingalls, Chris Jesse, Karen
Fleckenstein, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Menard, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does
1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-00107 (W.D. Wisc., Feb. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud for breach of
contract.
Menard Inc. is a chain of home improvement stores, located in
Midwestern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric J. Haag, Esq.
ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C.
8500 Greenway Blvd., Ste. 103
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone: (608) 821-4600
Fax: (608) 821-4610
Email: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com
MENN LAW: Awaits Final Court Approval of Cole FDCPA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Green Bay Division issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement in
the captioned KAITLYN COLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MENN LAW FIRM, LTD.,
Defendant. Case No. 1:19-cv-00527-WCG. (E.D. Wis.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), and for settlement purposes
only, the Court certifies this action as a class action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(1)(B):
(a) defines the Settlement Class as:
All persons to whom Menn Law Finn, Ltd. mailed an initial written
communication to an address in the State of Wisconsin, between
April 12, 2018 and May 3, 2019, in the form attached as Exhibit A
to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which was not returned as
undeliverable.
(b) defines the Class Claims as those FDCPA claims arising from
Menn's collection letters in the form of Exhibit A to Plaintiff's
Complaint.
(c) appoints Plaintiff as the Class Representative
(d) appoints STERN•THOMASSON LLP as Class Counsel; and
(e) appoints Class-Settlement.com as the Third-Party Administrator
to send notice of the Settlement to Class Members and administer
the Settlement.
The Court approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs
that it be mailed to the last known address of Class Member as
shown in Menn's business records. The Administrator shall mail the
Class Notice to Class Members on or before November 29, 2019. The
Administrator shall send the Notice by any form of U.S. Mail
providing forwarding addresses.
The Court finds that mailing of the Class Notice, and the Parties'
notice plan, is the only notice required and that such notice
satisfies the requirements of due process pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the United States
Constitution, and any other applicable law.
Class Members had until January 13, 2020, to exclude themselves
from, or object to, the Settlement.
A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement
and whether final approval shall be given to it and the requests
for fees and expenses by Class Counsel was to be held on February
7, 2020, at 2:30 p.m.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qwehrt5 from Leagle.com.
Kaitlyn Cole, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson , Stern
Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, New Jersey
07081-1315, Harry R. Thomasson , Steinberg Fineo Berger & Fischoff
PC, Philip D. Stern , Stern Thomasson LLP, 40 Crossways Park Drive,
Woodbury, NY 11797& Francis R. Greene , Stern Thomasson LLP, 150
Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, New Jersey 07081-1315.
Menn Law Firm LTD, Defendant, represented by Erik H. Monson -
emonson@cnsbb.com - Coyne Schultz Becker & Bauer SC & Vincent
James Scipior - vscipior@cnsbb.com - Coyne Schultz Becker & Bauer
SC.
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Perry Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PERRY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs v. MID-SOUTH
MAINTENANCE OF TN, LLC and EEC ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a SMART CARE
EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00116 (M.D.
Tenn., February 6, 2020) is a collective action brought against
Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation
and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Perry was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
Technician.
Plaintiff claims that he and all other hourly-paid Technicians were
required by Defendants to perform work duties outside their
scheduled dispatches or work orders without being "clocked-in" and
"clocked-out" to Defendants' timekeeping system and without being
compensated for such "off the clock" work.
Moreover, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other
members of the class at least the required minimum wage rate of
$7.25 an hour for all hours worked, involving a variety of unpaid
"off the clock" and "edited-out/shaved time", thereby violated the
FLSA.
Mid-South Maintenance is a limited liability company that provides
onsite maintenance and repair for commercial kitchen equipment.
EEC Acquisition purchased Mid-South Maintenance in February of 2019
through its Smart Care subsidiary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Tel: (615) 851-1776
Fax: (615) 859-7033
Email: nina@poncelaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued by Guiliano in Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Claudio Guiliano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00878 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of 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 C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
NEWBEAUTY MEDIA: Ct. Directs Parties to File Info re Proposed Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order directing Information Whether the Proposed
Settlement Agreement Alters Legal Rights of Purported Unnamed Class
Members in the case captioned Lynette Tatum-Rios, Plaintiff, v.
Newbeauty Media Group, LLLP, Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 9383.
(S.D.N.Y.).
The Parties must inform the Court, by Affidavit, whether the
proposed settlement agreement alters the legal rights of purported,
unnamed class members. This Affidavit shall be filed within 10 days
of this Order and the Parties file a Stipulation of Dismissal
within 30 days of the date of this Order.
If the Parties fail to do so, the Defendant SHALL answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint within 45 days of the date of
this Order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 6, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s9gmhvj from Leagle.com
Lynette Tatum-Rios, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Howard
Lowe - Chris@lipskylowe.com - Lipsky Lowe LLP.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Recover Costs from Insurers Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to pursue recovery of allowable costs and coverage
litigation against various of its insurance carriers related to the
class action suit entitled, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK,
Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN).
On August 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against Orbital ATK and certain individuals,
captioned Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No.
16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN).
As later amended, the complaint asserted claims on behalf of
Orbital ATK shareholders for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act allegedly arising out of false and misleading
statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked
effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result,
Orbital ATK failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term
contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber
ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The
complaint sought damages and other relief.
On June 7, 2019, the court approved the parties' proposal to
resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to certain terms
and conditions.
The company continues to pursue recovery of allowable costs and
coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products
in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and
logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four
segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems,
and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded
in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia.
OPA-LOCKA, FL: Class Action Over Water Overbilling Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Leibowitz, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a technical
error was causing under-billing for water in Opa-locka until the
problem was discovered late last year, according to Miami-Dade
County officials, who say astronomical bills received by some
properties recently are an attempt to recover payments for past
use.
Since the New Year, some residents have had their water shut off
because owners haven't paid the bills, according to multiple owners
and an attorney who represents about 30,000 Opa-locka residents in
a class action lawsuit against the city for past over-billing and
fraud.
"There are no words to describe how ridiculous it is that the
county and city officials made a mistake and now they want to
impose misery and unsafe health conditions all throughout the city
of Opa-locka,"said attorney Michael Pizzi. "The homeowners, the
children, the seniors should not have to pay the price for mistakes
that the county or the city made."
Douglas Yoder, the deputy director of the county's water and sewer
department, which handles billing for Opa-locka, said the problem
was related to software that converts the volume of water used into
a dollar amount.
Yoder said the issue may have occurred as accounts were being
transferred from the city to the county over the past couple years,
but he said he wasn't sure when it started or how many accounts
were affected.
"In this particular case, it was understating the amount of water
that's being used," he said. "Under our rules, if an error like
that is made, the water was still used and so it really has to be
paid for."
The bills in some cases have been eye-popping.
At the Lakeview apartments on Northwest 135th Street near 24th
Avenue, which consist of 112 units across two buildings, monthly
water bills in November and December totaled around $2,000,
according to Pizzi.
That's why the January bills were so shocking: over $135,000
between the two buildings.
"Literally, out of nowhere, they received bills of a combined
$140,000 with no increase in consumption and no explanation," Pizzi
wrote on Jan. 16 in an email to officials from Opa-locka and
Miami-Dade County. "You are forcing these citizens to go to court
to survive."
On Jan. 17, the apartment complex's owners filed a lawsuit against
the city and county, saying officials had threatened to turn off
their water if they didn't pay the massive bill, "endangering the
health and safety of hundreds of residents."
Aimee Martinez, the head of the water and sewer department's retail
customer service division, said she believes the Lakeview
apartments still have several weeks before their water will be shut
off. She said customers should contact the county to work out
payment plans and aren't necessarily expected to pay the entire
bills all at once.
Martinez said owners typically receive two sets of notices for
unpaid bills about 30 days apart, and then hangers are placed on
tenants' doors warning of an impending shutoff. Two weeks after
that, water service can be disconnected.
"If they don't call us and at least have a discussion with us about
paying the bill, then ultimately it will be disconnected," Martinez
said.
Yoder said county officials spoke with the owner of the Lakeview
apartments on Jan.1 7 about making an initial payment and about a
payment plan going forward.
Martinez said she doesn't believe the apartments are being
over-billed.
"They were notified of the corrections that were being made and
they were offered a contact to call so we could explain the change
in the bill amount," Martinez said.
But Pizzi disputed that owners have been properly notified of the
software error or that they can work out payment plans for
unusually high bills. If there was a problem, he said, the county
should have put a moratorium on turning off water "until they had
some meetings and came up with a way to deal with this crisis."
"The only thing they have done is sent turn-off notices and turned
off the water," Pizzi said.
Elsewhere in Opa-locka, Raul Fernandez, who owns several properties
in the city, said he has continued to deal with wildly fluctuating
bills since the county took over the process.
The water was shut off in January at an eight-unit building he owns
on Northwest 132nd Terrace, where he says bills have spiked
inexplicably in recent years despite no apparent leaks -- from $464
in January 2016 to $1,084 in April 2017 to over $3,000 in October
2019.
"How can eight units spend $3,000 of water a month? It's
impossible," Fernandez told the Herald. "Either [officials are]
stealing money or they're incompetent as hell. Either way, it's not
good for the citizens of Opa-locka."
Fernandez filed an amended lawsuit on Jan. 17 against the city and
county, demanding that the water at five of his properties not be
turned off. Three of the properties have been added to a case he
initially brought in December.
Martinez said the county shut off the water at Fernandez's 132nd
Terrace property in January because a payment hadn't been made
since November. The water has since been turned back on, officials
said, possibly by a resident but not with the county's
authorization.
Among the properties facing the prospect of disconnected water is
the New Fellowship Baptist Church. In a Jan. 3 letter, the city of
Opa-locka said the church hasn't made a water payment since March
2019 and owes over $9,000.
"If we do not receive payment in full or hear from you within 15
business days . . . we will have no choice but to disconnect water
and sewer services," the notice reads.
In an email on Jan. 15 to the city's attorneys in the ongoing class
action, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said the church's bills, along
with other water bills in Opa-locka, are in dispute. He suggested a
court hearing be held to discuss the issue.
The church "received the same outsized bills as many others in Opa
Locka,"attorney David Reiner wrote. "Is it the City's position
that, in the mist of the lawsuit challenging the validity of these
bills, the City can still move to collect these water bills under
threat of termination of service?"
Representatives for the city declined to comment on particular
billing concerns, citing pending litigation.
"However, please note that the City of Opa-locka contracted with
Miami-Dade County Water & Sewer in 2017 to replace water meters and
manage billing," Mayor Matthew Pigatt said in an email. "This is a
substantial change that is currently in process to ensure accuracy
for all of our residents and property owners. We ask for patience
as we work together to ensure fair, transparent, and accurate
billing."
Martinez and Yoder said on Jan. 17 that they would work to respond
to detailed questions from the Herald about the exact nature,
timing and scope of the problem, how owners were notified of it,
and how the county has been able to obtain accurate calculations of
how much money is now owed for past use.
Last April, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko certified a
class of current and former Opa-locka water users seeking payback
for past fraud and waste, including homeowners who testified about
monthly bills exceeding $1,000 based on estimates as opposed to
actual meter readings. The city is appealing the class
certification ruling.
Pizzi has suggested damages could cost the cash-strapped city more
than $30 million dating back to 2012.
A long history of malfeasance in the city's water system has bred
mistrust among residents and property owners that remains strong
today. In 2016, Opa-locka relinquished control of the billing
system amid reports of rampant corruption and overcharging,
including employees shaking down residents for cash and bills being
waived for politically connected customers. Seven people have since
pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme uncovered by the FBI.
The city's water accounts were transferred to the county over a
two-year period and faulty meters were replaced. Under a contract
between them, Opa-locka is paying off millions of dollars in debt
for water it bought from the county.
But problems have persisted. In October 2018, then-City Manager
Newall Daughtrey was fired after allegedly trying to file liens
against several dozen properties with outstanding water bills of
$10,000 or higher. Among the properties was then-Mayor Myra
Taylor's private school, which owed more than $100,000 in unpaid
water bills.
Daughtrey filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the city, saying
in an affidavit that he was fired for telling officials that the
"'friends and family policy' on water collections and corrupt
management of the water billing system that gave a free ride to
wealthy individuals and companies would result in people 'going to
jail.'"
Another whistle-blower suit came this past September, when an
Opa-locka employee responsible for reading water meters, Ambrose
Obasi, said city staff members have intentionally falsified billing
records to overcharge residents for over a decade. Obasi claims his
job was threatened when he complained to superiors.
The latest questions about water billing in Opa-locka and the
county's role in overseeing it come as lawmakers consider new bills
in the Florida House and Senate that could force the city to vote
on whether to dissolve and become an unincorporated area of
Miami-Dade.
Only residents have the power to dissolve their own city under the
county's home rule charter, but the state's Joint Legislative
Auditing Committee -- which received a scathing report about fraud
and mismanagement in Opa-locka in June -- is pushing for
legislation that would force any municipality to vote on
dissolution if certain criteria are met.
Former Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of financial emergency in
Opa-locka in 2016 and appointed a board to oversee the city's
spending. The board remains in place today. [GN]
OPEN TEXT: Suit v. Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that Carbonite, Inc.
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to its
Server Backup VM Edition.
On December 24, 2019, the company acquired all of the equity
interest in Carbonite, Inc., a provider of cloud-based subscription
backup, disaster recovery and endpoint security to small and
medium-sized businesses (SMB), consumers, and a wide variety of
partners. Total consideration for Carbonite was approximately $1.4
billion, comprised of $1.3 billion paid in cash (inclusive of cash
acquired) and approximately $0.1 billion currently held back and
unpaid in accordance with the purchase agreement.
On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite,
a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action
complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony
Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S.
Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).
The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.
On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna
Complaint, the "Securities Actions").
On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities
Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel.
On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019. The
defendants' answer or responsive pleading is due by March 10, 2020.
Open Text said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage
of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this
action and are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from this proceeding."
Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.
ORGAIN INC: Hamilton Sues Over Misleading Almondmilk Drink Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbie Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orgain, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01084 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7,
2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the
Defendant's misleading representations on their almondmilk
beverages products purporting to be flavored only with vanilla.
The relevant front label statements include "Orgain," "Almondmilk,"
"10X The Protein," "Organic Protein," "10g Protein," "Unsweetened"
and "Vanilla." The Plaintiff alleges that the representations are
misleading because though the characterizing flavor is represented
as vanilla, the vanilla taste and flavor is not provided
exclusively by vanilla beans. The Defendant's branding and
packaging of the Products are designed to--and did--deceive,
mislead, and defraud consumers, the Plaintiff adds.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has sold more of the
Products and at higher prices per unit than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff
purchased and consumed was materially less than its value as
represented by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would
have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.00 per unit,
excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption
within this district.
Orgain, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
almondmilk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla
under the Orgain brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
OTB ACQUISITION: Samuels Sues in Arkansas Over Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OTB Acquisition, LLC.
The case is styled as Brittney Samuels, Lacy Guyton, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OTB Acquisition,
LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-06012-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
OTB Acquisition LLC, doing business as On The Border Mexican Grill
& Cantina (OTB), is a chain of Tex-Mex food casual dining
restaurants located in the United States and recently opened in
South Korea.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PASSON & PASSON: Sierra Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Santiago Sierra, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. PASSON & PASSON CORP., 229 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a TERRA,
225 WEST BROADWAY CORP d/b/a ATTRAVERSA, GOOD LUCK RIBBON CORP.
d/b/a ARICCIA, 7 WASHINGTON LANE CORP. d/b/a ARIA HELL'S KITCHEN,
228 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a ARIA, BRICIOLA CORP. d/b/a BRICIOLA, 230
BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a COTENNA, 62 CARMINE CORP. d/b/a CODINO, 329
BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a LABORATORIO, ROBERTO PASSON, TANYA
HIRA-PASSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01074 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover unpaid minimum
wage, unpaid overtime due to a policy of time-shaving, unpaid
spread of hours premium, improper meal credit deductions, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid all wages or
their overtime premium, at a rate of time and one half of the
regular hourly rate, for all hours worked and for those exceeding
40 hours per workweek due to the Defendants' policy of time-shaving
during the relevant statutory period. The Plaintiff regularly
worked days exceeding 10 hours in length, but the Defendants
unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff their spread-of-hours
premium. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying for all hours worked, and the
proper overtime rate thereof for all hours worked to the Plaintiff,
in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher
and salad prepper.
The Defendants own and operate nine restaurants located throughout
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
PERRIGO CO: Court Certifies All Classes in Roofer Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
granted class certification in the case captioned ROOFER'S PENSION
FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 16-2805. (D.N.J.).
The putative securities class action was filed in May 2016 on
behalf of investors who purchased Perrigo Company plc common stock
between April 21, 2015 and May 3, 2017. The claims arise from
alleged misrepresentations Defendants made to investors to falsely
inflate Perrigo's stock value in the face of a hostile tender offer
from a competitor.
Defendant Perrigo is a publicly-traded pharmaceutical company.
Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, the Individual Defendants, were
corporate executives at Perrigo when the relevant
misrepresentations occurred.
Lead Plaintiff Perrigo Institutional Investor Group is a group of
investors comprised of the following corporate entities: Migdal
Insurance Company Ltd. ("Migdal Insurance"), Migdal Makefet Pension
and Provident Fund Ltd. ("Migdal Makefet" and, with Migdal
Insurance, "Migdal"), Clal Insurance Company Ltd. ("Clal
Insurance"), Clal Pension and Provident Ltd. ("Clal Pension"),
Atudot Pension Fund for Employees and Independent Workers Ltd.
("Atudot" and, with Clal Insurance and Clal Pension, "Canaf-Clal"),
and Meitav DS Provident Funds and Pension Ltd. ("Meitav"). Migdal
is one of the largest insurance and pension managers in Israel, and
each of the Migdal entities purchased Perrigo stock during the
Class Period, including on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).
Canaf-Clal comprises Israeli investment entities, each of which
purchased Perrigo shares during the Class Period, including on the
TASE. Meitav is an affiliate of a leading Israel investment firm
and purchased Perrigo shares during the Class Period, including on
the TASE.
The Plaintiff amended the Complaint in June 2017. Moreover, in
July 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
Plaintiff now seeks to certify three separate classes of Perrigo
investors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): (1)
investors who suffered damages resulting from the purchase of
Perrigo stock on the NYSE during the Class Period; (2) investors
who suffered damages resulting from the purchase of Perrigo stock
on the TASE during the Class Period; and (3) investors who held
Perrigo stock as of November 12, 2015 until Mylan's tender offer
for Perrigo expired.
On review, the Court finds that Lead Plaintiff satisfied each of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s necessary prerequisites for
class certification, which are numerosity, commonality, typicality
and adequacy.
The Court notes that class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, and the class claims are predicated on
the same underlying misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants.
The Court further notes that Lead Plaintiff has demonstrated the
required "minimal degree of knowledge" about this litigation and,
critically, retained adequate counsel to represent the class
members interests.
As to Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of superiority and predominance,
the Court examines them.
Critically, given the voluminous class size, class adjudication in
this forum is appropriate to ensure consistency in adjudication and
to prevent the possibility of conflicting outcomes that may be
rendered on individual claims, the Court opines. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the class action is the most appropriate vehicle
for adjudication, and the superiority requirement is met.
Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate only if the
Court finds that common questions of law or fact predominate over
questions exclusively affecting individual members.
Defendants contend that Lead Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)'s
predominance requirement with respect to the issues of reliance and
damages. Because Defendants' arguments concerning reliance are
unique to each proposed class, the Court considered the viability
of each.
A. Reliance: U.S. Purchaser Class
The Court must first determine whether Lead Plaintiff has shown:
(1) Perrigo's alleged misrepresentations were publicly known; (2)
Perrigo's stock traded in a public market; and (3) Lead Plaintiff
traded stock between the time the misrepresentations were made and
the truth was revealed. The Court is satisfied that those
requirements are met here.
Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' misrepresentations were
publicly known through investor presentations, conference calls,
letters, and other public statements during the Class Period. Lead
Plaintiff also alleges, with evidentiary support, that U.S.
Purchaser Class members purchased Perrigo stock during the Class
Period. Moreover, Lead Plaintiff has established that the New York
Stock Exchange is an efficient market, and Perrigo shares traded on
the NYSE during the Class Period. Having met these prerequisites,
Lead Plaintiff has established that the Basic presumption applies
to the U.S. Purchaser Class.
Considering the Defendants' rebuttal arguments, the Court finds
that Defendants have failed to make "[a]ny showing that severs the
link" between the misrepresentation and the price received or paid
or the "decision to trade at a fair market price," and the Court
concludes that the U.S. Purchaser Class is entitled to the Basic
presumption of reliance.
B. Reliance: TASE Purchaser Class
Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiff may not invoke the Basic
presumption of reliance for the TASE Purchaser Class because Lead
Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the TASE is an efficient market
for Perrigo shares. The Court disagrees.
Because the parties dispute concerns market efficiency, the Court
begins by analyzing the Cammer factors. The Cammer factors are: (1)
the stock's average weekly trading volume; (2) coverage of a
company's stock in securities analyst reports; (3) the reported
number of market makers; (4) the company's eligibility to file an
S-3 registration statement; and (5) stock price reaction to
unexpected corporate events or financial releases.
In support of its position that TASE is an efficient market, Lead
Plaintiff proffers Dr. Zachary Nye, Ph.D.'s expert report, which
examines the Cammer factors with respect to Perrigo's stock trading
on the TASE. Defendants challenge the reliability of Dr. Nye's
TASE market analysis and provide their own expert, Dr. Paul
Gompers, to support their contention that TASE is not an efficient
market.
Having considered the evidence and arguments submitted by both
parties, the Court finds that the majority of the Cammer factors -
two through five - tip the balance in favor of finding market
efficiency. The Court thus concludes that the TASE Purchaser Class
is entitled to the Basic presumption of reliance.
C. Reliance: The Tender Offer Class
Defendants attempt to rebut presumed reliance for "the
approximately 40% of Perrigo shareholders who rejected Perrigo's
recommendations and tendered their shares in response to Mylan's
offer." According to Defendants, the decision to tender over
Perrigo's recommendations evidences non-reliance, and, therefore,
individual issues of reliance for those shareholders will
predominate over common class questions. The Court disagrees.
The Court opines that a finding that tendering is per se evidence
of non-reliance would essentially foreclose other securities
litigants who may have relied on misrepresentations, but
nonetheless accepted a tender offer, from bringing a private cause
of action under Section 14(e). That is especially so here where
Defendants have not produced any other evidence showing that
Perrigo's tendering shareholders did not rely on the Company's
alleged misstatements. Simply put, that a shareholder tenders
shares over a company's recommendations is not categorical proof
that they did not rely on that company's disclosures in making
their decision. The Court thus declines to find that the act of
tendering alone rebuts the presumption of reliance. For those
reasons, Defendants have failed to meet their burden, and the Court
concludes that the Tender Offer Class is entitled to a presumption
of reliance.
Damages: All Claims
Defendants claim that Lead Plaintiff failed to propose a class-wide
damages methodology satisfying the predominance requirement for any
proposed class. The Court disagrees.
Dr. Nye has proposed class-wide damage methodologies for the
proposed classes. At this stage, the Court finds that Dr. Nye's
proposed methodologies are sufficient to satisfy the Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.
On assertions that Dr. Nye did not address certain hypotheticals
offered by Defendants, and did not actually calculate the amount of
damages for each class is inconsequential at this juncture. The
Court is not required to "assess the validity of Plaintiff's
damages model[s]" to determine whether class certification is
warranted. It is enough for Lead Plaintiff to show that each of
Dr. Nye's proposed methodologies can be used to prove damages on a
class-wide basis, which it has done. The Court thus finds that the
predominance requirement is met with respect to measuring damages
for each proposed class
Having considered the parties' arguments and submissions concerning
reliance and damages, the Court is satisfied that the predominance
requirement is met for each proposed class. Lead Plaintiff has thus
satisfied the class certification requirements of Rule 23(a) and
(b).
Class Period
As a final matter, the Court declines to modify the Class Period.
In the present case, the Class Period's commencement date of April
21, 2015 reflects the date on which Lead Plaintiff alleges Perrigo
made its first actionable misrepresentation. Based on the Amended
Complaint, Lead Plaintiff's proposed Class Period start date is
justified, the Court opines. Should Defendants wish to challenge
the Class Period after uncovering evidence that contradicts that
date, they may do so either on a motion for summary judgment or at
trial.
In sum and for the reasons set forth, Lead Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class is GRANTED with respect to each proposed class, the
Court rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/wacnovz from Leagle.com
HAREL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, Movant, represented by PETER S.
PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP, of Park
80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ
07663.
Dan Kleinerman, Movant, represented by DANIEL S. SOMMERS
-dsommers@cohenmilstein.com - COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
PLLC.
Michael Wilson, Movant, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN ,
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS. & PETER GEORGE SAFIRSTEIN -
psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com - Safirstein Metcalf LLP.
Perrigo Institutional Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented
by JONATHAN DAVID LINDENFELD , POMERANTZ LLP & MICHAEL THOMAS GRAY
LONG - mlong@lowenstein.com - LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC.
ROOFER'S PENSION FUND, On behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL S. SOMMERS , COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, MICHAEL B. HIMMEL -
mhimmel@lowenstein.com - LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP & MICHAEL THOMAS
GRAY LONG , LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC.
JOSEPH C. PAPA, Defendant, represented by GOUTAM UMESH JOIS ,
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP & MARSHALL R. KING -
mking@gibsondunn.com - GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP.
PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR -
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com - GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.
JUDY BROWN, Defendant, represented by BRIAN THOMAS FRAWLEY - -
frawleyb@sullcrom.com - SULIVAN & CROMWELL.
LAURIE BRLAS, GARY M. COHEN, JACQUALYN A. FOUSE, ELLEN R. HOFFING,
MICHAEL R. JANDERNOA, GERALD K. KUNKLE, JR., HERMAN MORRIS, JR. &
DONAL O'CONNOR, Defendants, represented by JANE J. FELTON -
jfelton@skoloffwolfe.com - Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C. & JONATHAN W.
WOLFE - etoll@skoloffwolfe.com - SKOLOFF & WOLFE, PC.
MARC COUCKE, Defendant, represented by KENNETH ANDREW BRADY ,
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, 250 Greenwich St., New
York, NY 10007-2140
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by ELIZABETH
GUDIS , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION & NATHAN
BRENNER , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION.
PORTOLA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of March 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action has been filed on behalf of
investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Portola" or the "Company") (PTLA) between
November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Portola securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Portola Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
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.
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.
If you purchased Portola securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/portolapharmaceuticalsinc-ptla-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-239/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
PORTOLA PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Notes of March 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 20 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Portola" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:PTLA) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 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. Portola failed to maintain effective
internal controls over financial reporting, including reserves for
product returns. The Company was actively shipping longer-dated
product with a 36-month shelf life, but did not maintain adequate
reserves for returns from its prior shipments of shorter-dated
product. The put the Company in the position of likely requiring an
accounting "catch up" on return reserves. 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 Portola, 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.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces McCutcheon Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John R. McCutcheon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SCOTT GARLAND,
SHELDON KOENIG, and MARDI C. DIER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00949 (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock
price.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Portola common stock from May 8,
2019, through January 9, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company's lead product is Andexxa, which is indicated for
patients treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban, when reversal of
anticoagulation is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled
bleeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Company misleadingly touted
Andexxa's revenues and future prospects--calling it one of the most
successful drug launches in history and hailing the Company's
purportedly exceptional execution on the Andexxa launch as the
catalyst for continued robust revenue growth. However, the Company
failed to warn investors of significant risks and trends that had
already materialized. While Portola emphasized "strong demand for
Andexxa," "deepening utilization within existing accounts" at
hospitals, and broad usage for the drug in a variety of medical
situations, in reality, the opposite was true, the Plaintiff
avers.
As the Company knew but concealed from investors, the "strong
demand" for Andexxa simply did not exist, according to the
complaint. Andexxa's astronomically high wholesale price of up to
$49,500 per dose forced many of Portola's clients to perform
utilization reviews of Andexxa's cost effectiveness as a treatment
to determine whether to continue to utilize Andexxa beyond a few
trial months. Consequently, a number of clients had drastically
"curtailed use of Andexxa following drug utilization reviews." This
caused Andexxa's quarterly sales growth to Tier 1 hospitals,
Portola's most important accounts, to collapse to zero or "flat."
On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of
$28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019 that fell short by a
wide margin of the $41 million consensus expectations.
Portola executives were forced to admit that Andexxa demand was
falling dramatically due to "typical" hospital utilization reviews
and the short shelf life of a version of the product. On this news,
the Company's share price plummeted by $9.98, or approximately 40%,
to close at $14.76 per share on January 10, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the six month shelf life of the short-dated Andexxa
was causing the Company to face a significant risk of returns from
customers due to expiration before use; (2) Portola was shifting to
a longer-dated Andexxa version with a shelf life of up to 36 months
to exchange with short- dated versions at no cost to customers but
at significant expense to the Company; (3) Portola had not
established adequate reserves for returns; (4) because of
utilization reviews, financially strapped hospitals and healthcare
organizations were curtailing usage of Andexxa in order to make
more efficient use of their budgets; (5) certain distributors were
cutting back on orders of Andexxa as they were awash with inventory
of Andexxa; (6) as a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need
to "catch up" on accounting for return reserves; and (7) therefore,
the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Portola common stock during the Class
Period.
Portola is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes treatments for thrombosis and other hematologic
diseases. The Company's lead product is Andexxa, marketed as
Ondexxya in Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
Brandon Marsh, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 997-0860
Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
bmarsh@saxenawhite.com, Esq.
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 303-1964
Email: brian@schallfirm.com
PRIMO WATER: Badder Balks at Cott Holdings Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
The case, CODY BADDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMO WATER CORPORATION, BILLY D.
PRIM, EMMA S. BATTLE, RICHARD A. BRENNER, SUSAN E. CATES, JACK C.
KILGORE, MALCOLM MCQUILKIN, CHARLES A. NORRIS, DAVID L. WARNOCK,
COTT HOLDINGS INC., FORE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, FORE MERGER LLC,
AND COTT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00191-UNA (D.
Del., February 7, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Plaintiff Badder's allegation arises out of Primo Water's Board of
Directors attempt to sell the Company, which was first disclosed on
January 13, 2020, to Cott Corporation through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Cott Holdings Inc., Cott Holdings Inc.'s wholly-owned
subsidiary Fore Merger LLC, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Fore
Acquisition Corporation.
Plaintiff asserts that the 14D-9 information, concerning the sales
process, financial projections prepared by Primo Water management,
and the financial analyses conducted by Primo Water's financial
advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, to be filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2020 was
materially incomplete and misleading, thereby violated the Exchange
Act Sections 14(a) and 20(a).
The purpose of the 14D-9 is to provide the Company's stockholders,
including Plaintiff, with all the material information necessary
for them to make an informed decision on whether to tender their
shares in favor of the merger deal.
Primo Water provides multi-gallon purified bottled water,
self-service drinking water and water dispensers. [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
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.coom
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
ROWLEY LAW PLLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914) 400-1920
Fax: (914) 301-3514
PRODUCERS SERVICE: Casarez Granted Partial Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case JESUS CASAREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRODUCERS SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-1086. (S.D. Ohio), the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, entered
an Order:
1. granting in part and holding in abeyance in part Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Belo Contract;
2. denying as moot Plaintiff's Contingent Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment; and
3. denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The action arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
(OMFWSA), Ohio Revised Code Sections 4111.01, 4111.03, and 4111.19,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (OPPA), Ohio Revised Code Section
4113.15. In May 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification of Collective Action and named the class
"[a]ll current and former employees of Defendant who were employed
as non-management oilfield operations employees for Defendant at
any time since December 14, 2014."
Defendant is a for-profit limited liability company providing
products and services in the oil and gas industry throughout the
United States. Defendant employed Plaintiff as an oilfield
equipment operator, a non-management oilfield operations position.
Non-management oilfield equipment operators provide the manual
labor needed for pumping and tracking oil wells on site including
loading, assembling, operating, and disassembling the equipment
involved.
Defendant's work for its customers requires fracking operations to
run 24-hours per day. Defendant's employees work 12-hour shifts and
stay in camps or hotels while working. Non-managerial oilfield
operations employees sometimes work to more than 40 hours per week,
and at other times, less than 40 hours per week. Employees are
paid a base pay, a stage pay and quarterly bonuses. Only the base
pay is used to calculate employees' overtime pay.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA, OMFWSA, and
OPPA by depriving Plaintiff, and those on whose behalf he brings
the suit, of proper overtime compensation for the hours they worked
over forty per week. Defendant contends it did not violate the
FLSA, OMFWSA, or the OPPA, because it paid its employees pursuant
to a valid Belo contract.
Accordingly, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment with
respect to the failure of Defendant's Belo contract, and thus, its
failure to pay overtime as required by the FLSA, and Plaintiff's
proposed method of calculating damages. In the alternative,
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment regarding the
non-discretionary nature of stage pay and quarterly bonuses and the
requirement that such bonuses be included in Plaintiff's regular
rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime wages. In addition,
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.
Validity of Defendant's Belo Contract
The FLSA provides that employers cannot employ employees for a
workweek longer than 40 hours unless the employee receives overtime
compensation "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which he is employed." The FLSA has a provision
for an exception to the rule requiring overtime compensation at not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate and it is known
as the Belo contract or Belo plan. The exception provides that an
employer does not violate the overtime requirements if: (1) the
"employee is employed pursuant to a bona fide individual contract
...;" (2) "the duties of such employee necessitate irregular hours
of work;" (3) the contract "specifies a regular rate of pay of not
less than the minimum hourly rate ... and compensation at not less
than one and one-half times such rate for all hours worked in
excess of such maximum workweek;" and (4) the contract "provides a
weekly guaranty of pay for not more than sixty hours based on the
rates so specified."
Plaintiff contends Defendant has failed to satisfy all four
required elements for establishing a valid Belo contract exists,
and thus, is entitled to summary judgment. Defendant contends it
has satisfied all four required elements for establishing a valid
Belo contract exists, and thus, it is entitled to summary judgment.
The Court finds that Defendant failed to meet its burden on one of
the four requirements. The Court, therefore, need not address the
other three requirements for Defendant has not met its burden of
showing all four elements exist.
A valid Belo contract requires the defendant to show the duties of
its employees necessitate irregular hours of work. The Court finds
that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to show the cause of
the employees' irregular hours was inherent in the nature of the
work and beyond Defendant's control and thus, Plaintiff has shown
he is entitled to summary judgment.
Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant did not meet its burden
to show it satisfied the second requirement for a Belo contract.
Defendant's failure to satisfy one element means Defendant cannot
meet its burden to establish a valid Belo contract because it
cannot show all four required elements exist.
Without a valid Belo contract, Defendant failed to pay its
employees according to the FLSA. Defendant's employees were not
paid one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours they
worked over forty. Instead, they were paid a base pay amount each
week without consideration of how many hours they worked over forty
and then some additional amount based only on the base pay,
irrespective of bonuses, for hours over sixty. Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgement is granted as to the Defendant's liability,
the Court rules. Plaintiff and those on behalf of whom he brings
this action are thus, entitled to unpaid overtime compensation, the
Court opines.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment with
respect to his proposed method of calculating damages. Defendant
has stated that Plaintiff's proposed calculations are flawed and
requests further briefing on the issue. The Court will allow
Defendant a response to Plaintiff's motion and Plaintiff a reply to
Defendant's response in accordance with Local Rule 7.2.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of calculation
of damages, therefore, is held in abeyance, the Court rules.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on both of Plaintiff's Ohio
law claims. Plaintiff's claims under the OMFWSA and OPPA are
indistinguishable from Plaintiff's FLSA claim. The parties agree
that both of the Ohio laws require that employers pay their
employees consistent with the FLSA. The Defendant's failure to
show they paid their employees in accordance with a valid Belo
contract, applies equally to the OMFWSA and the OPPA claims. The
Court, thus, denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiff's OMFWSA and OPPA claims and finds Defendant liable to
Plaintiff under these acts as well.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uz438sr from
Leagle.com
Douglas Squires, Mediator, pro se.
Jesus Casarez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert E. DeRose, II , Barkan
Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, 250 E. Broad St., 10th
Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215, Christopher Wesley Burks , SANFORD LAW
FIRM, PLLC, One Financial Center, 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211, pro hac vice, Jessica R. Doogan ,
Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, 250 E. Broad
St., 10th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215, Josh Sanford , Sanford Law
Firm, PLLC, One Financial Center, 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211, pro hac vice & Sean Short , Sanford
Law Firm, PLLC, One Financial Center, 650 S. Shackleford, Suite
411, Little Rock, Arkansas 72211, pro hac vice.
Producers Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason
Hayes Beehler -
jbeehler@keglerbrown.com - Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, Brendan P.
Feheley
- bfeheley@keglerbrown.com - Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter & Jane
Gleaves-
jgleaves@keglerbrown.com - KEGLER BROWN HILL RITTER CO. LPA.
PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: Faces Allen Employment Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PROGISTICS
DISTRIBUTION, INC. The case is styled as Gary Allen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PROGISTICS
DISTRIBUTION, INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 20STCV05422
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
Progistics Distribution, Inc. was founded in 2012. The Company's
line of business includes the arranging of transportation of
freight and cargo.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
8822 W Olympic Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
E-mail: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com
mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER PRINKEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PURPLE LAND MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Case No.
2:20-cv-00081-MPK (W.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Ms. Prinkey and the other workers like
her regularly worked for Purple Land Management in excess of 40
hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Purple Land Management
paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay and improperly
classified them as independent contractors.
Purple Land is a full-service land management firm that handles
title and leasing, due diligence and opinion certification to
right-of-way acquisition, surveying and surface operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713 877 8788
Facsimile: 713 877 8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
REALTY SHARES: Faces Raudonis Suit Over Sale of Debt Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER RAUDONIS, as trustee for the WALTER J. RAUDONIS 2016
REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALTY SHARES, INC., RS LENDING, INC., NAVJOT ATHWAL,
EDWARD FORST and IIRR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10107-PBS (D. Mass., Jan. 17, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' offering of debt securities in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and California's Blue Sky Law.
RealtyShares and its subsidiary, RS Lending, offered and sold
securities to investors, such as the Plaintiff and the Classes,
through an online investment platform for real estate crowdfunding
services. Among the investments they offered and sold in 2018 were
debt securities related to millions of dollars worth of loans for
property acquisition and construction of several restaurant
franchises and urgent care facilities at various locations across
the United States. The sponsor and effective borrower for these
loans was Franchise Growth, LLC.
In the offering documents, RealtyShares and RS Lending represented
they had conducted due diligence on Franchise Growth, that
Franchise Growth had a "reported track record" and "extensive
experience" in the franchising business and that it anticipated the
development of more than 400 units in 13 states within the next
three years.
The Plaintiff contends that these material representations were
untrue because the reality was RealtyShares and RS Lending had done
no effective due diligence to substantiate Franchise Growth's
"track record" or "extensive experience."
As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements, the Plaintiff and the members of the Franchise Growth
and Owensboro Church's Chicken Classes purchased the securities at
issue and were damaged thereby.
The Plaintiff purchased $100,000 worth of debt securities related
to a Franchise-Growth sponsored loan for property acquisition and
construction of a Church's Chicken restaurant to be located at 2735
Calumet Trace, in Owensboro, Kentucky, in May 2018. He also
purchased $100,000 worth of debt securities from the "Nationwide
SFR Package," relating a loan to Ingersoll Financial to purchase,
repair and resell residential properties, in Aug. 2016.
RealtyShares began operations in or around 2013. RealtyShares owned
and operated an online investment platform for real estate
crowdfunding services, the RealtyShares Platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Michelle Blauner, Esq.
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
2 Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
mblauner@shulaw.com
imcloughlin@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
RHMT LLC: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RHMT, LLC. The case
is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RHMT, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00890-JCS (N.D. Cal., Feb.
6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RHMT LLC is in the Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores industry in
San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
SAVE MART: Faces Rooney Suit in California Over Employment Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Save Mart
Supermarkets, et al. The case is styled as Shaun Rooney, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Does
1-20, Case No. 34-2020-00274973-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., Feb. 6, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited".
Save Mart Supermarkets is an American grocery store operator. Save
Mart owns and operates stores under the names of Save Mart, S-Mart
Foods, Lucky and FoodMaxx.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY
3200 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661-4238
Telephone: (916) 960-2080
E-mail: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com
SCORES HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Santos de Oliveira Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
awaits court's decision in its motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company,
Inc.; Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard
Rosenbluth, Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD.
The Company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the action
entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.;
Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth,
Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court
of the Southern District.
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions
of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of
Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated
the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the
wage statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs
in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from
tips in violation of the NYLL.
Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants.
The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company, along with
the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit. The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome is remote because the Company's records show,
inter alia, that the Plaintiff never worked more than 25 hours per
week.
On October 10, 2018, the company together with its subsidiary SLC
filed a civil action in Supreme Court of New York, New York County
against SCMD, LLC. the former licensee of SCORES Baltimore, said
license having been terminated effective October 1, 2018. The civil
action seeks damages for unpaid royalties in an amount of at least
$170,000. The action is pending.
Defendant removed the case to the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 1-18-cv-11364-PGG. Plaintiff then
filed an amended complaint in federal court. Defendant has filed a
request for leave to file a motion to dismiss. The Company had
until January 5, 2020 to submit opposition and then the Defendant
has until January 15, 2020 to serve a reply to the Company's
opposition. The motion has been fully submitted and the company's
await a decision.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company. The
company is engaged in the business of licensing the Scores brand
name and other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with
adult entertainment in the United States. The company was formerly
known as Adonis Energy, Inc. and in adopted its current name in
July 2002. The company is based in New York.
SEBA ABODE: Violates FLSA Over Pay Deduction Scheme, Wofford Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KWEILIN WOFFORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE, Case No.
2:20-cv-00084-DSC (W.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2020), challenges the
Defendant's policy and practice of reducing its employees' regular
hourly rate if those employees work overtime, which is purposefully
designed to evade the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage.
By utilizing this "pay deduction" scheme, the Defendant denies the
Plaintiff and similarly situated home health care companion
employees the full compensation to which they are entitled, says
the complaint. Further, the Defendant is unjustly enriched at its
employees' expense.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as a home health care
companion for elderly and disabled individuals.
Seba Abode provides quality home care in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
for seniors looking for care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
Emily Wittlinger, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
E-mail: efeinstein@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
ewittlinger@fdpklaw.com
SECOND CHANCE: Disgruntled Donor's Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J Reilly, writing for Forbes, reports that Chad and Dana
Loube thought that they had found a great deal. They had purchased
a property in Potomac MD that was a tear down. They learned that
there was a more tax efficient socially responsible step on the way
to achieving the vacant lot that they wanted to build on.
Before final demolition Second Chance Inc, a 501(c)(3)
organization, would send in a team to "deconstruct" salvaging
material that might be re-purposed. The social good is manifold.
The team was composed largely of recently released prisoners who
need, you know, a second chance and can learn how a building it put
together by helping to take it apart. Second Chance calls the work
created to be "green collar jobs". There is less stuff going into
the landfill and the material can be sold at affordable prices to
those in need.
On top of the satisfaction of helping the community, the Loubes get
a tax deduction for the fair market value of the material
salvaged.
Deduction Denied
Only they didn't get the $297,000 deduction claimed on their 2013
tax return. They got an IRS audit resulting in a deficiency notice
for $117,612, which was upheld in Judge Copeland's Tax Court
decision on Jan. 8, 2020.
I spoke with Mr. Loube and he thinks that he got a raw deal. He was
dealing with a not-for-profit that has IRS approval and relied on
their assurances and had a bad outcome. You and I both know that
the IRS has close to zero capacity to regulate the not-for-profit
sector, but I can still sympathize with Mr. Loube's point of view.
About Second Chance
I spoke with Mark Foster, founder and executive director of Second
Chance Inc. (salary of $254,000 for 2017, if you care about that
sort of thing). His inspiration for starting the organization was
trying to find particular items to do an authentic renovation, but
from there he saw the opportunity to employ people who had a great
deal of trouble finding working and have a positive environmental
impact.
This all is fueled significantly by a tax subsidy, which frankly
puts my bs detector on high alert. I asked Mr. Foster if the items
from a deconstruction project will be sold by Second Chance for as
much as they are appraised and he allowed that they might not be.
It reminds me just a little bit of what was going on with used cars
quite a few years ago.
The IRS Has A Problem
The fair market appraised value of what is salvaged does not seem
to have a real world anchor. The taxpayers pay cash for the
deconstruction and the appraisal, but there does not appear to be
the option to just sell the stuff to somebody, which, in principle,
would dictate the amount of the charitable contribution.
So there are indications that the IRS has an overall problem with
the deals. Second Chance Inc faced a class action lawsuit from a
disgruntled donor who had a bad experience with the IRS and thought
it was part of a larger pattern.
The lawsuit fell apart, though and Second Chance pressed for an
apology as part of the dismissal. Mr. Foster provided me with a
copy. I have not heard back from the plaintiffs or their
attorneys.
Go For The Gotchas
It appears the IRS is taking a similar approach to what it has been
doing, up until to recently with easement donations. Rather than
tackling valuation, they go over deals with a fine tooth comb
looking for technical foot faults to deny the deduction
altogether.
We conclude that petitioners failed to strictly comply with DEFRA
sec. 155 and the regulations thereunder because they failed to
provide, among other information, the basis and the acquisition
date of the contributed property on the appraisal summary.
Petitioners also failed to attach to the appraisal summary an
explanation of reasonable cause for their inability to provide the
basis, acquisition date, or other information related to the
contributed property. (Emphasis added)
So at the end of the day, the disallowance falls on the return
preparer. Two of Reilly's Laws of Tax Planning come into play here.
The Fourth Law - Execution isn't everything, but it is a lot -- and
the Seventh Law -- Read the instructions. Implicit in the Seventh
Law is the notion that you should answer all the questions or to
put it another way, fill out the form thoroughly.
Another Disallowance Last January
This is not the first IRS rodeo with Second Chance Inc. Lawrence
and Linda Mann sued for refund in district court over a $675,000
deduction for the donation of their house. That one turned on
another execution failure
As to house, even though taxpayers sought to convey undivided
interest to org. via private contract, because they never recorded
their transaction in accord with Maryland law, house wasn't
properly severed from underlying property and ownership wasn't
transferred to org., leaving donation as more in nature of license
to org. and not valid transfer of entire interest in real property
. . .
It Might Work Even If It Should Not
I hold two seemingly contradictory opinions on Second Chance Inc. I
think what they are doing is good and that their leadership is
sincere. And I think that they are being fueled by deductions that
are fundamentally unsound.
If the salvageable material from deconstructing your house is worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars, you should not need to pay
somebody to take the house apart so that you can give the pieces to
charity. There should be people waving money in front of your face
to come in and take it apart.
As it happens, though, the IRS has won in court only against
taxpayers who did not execute well. So if you are thinking about
using this technique, see that you dot all the i's and cross all
the t's and use a substantial firm for the preparation. And set
aside your tax savings, just in case. I'm not going to recommend
it, but I probably wouldn't try that hard to talk you out of it.
For You Literary Types
If you came to this piece expecting me to be writing about the
relationship between text and meaning and Jacques Derrida, the joke
is on you. I don't think I'll ever understand semiotics, but you
probably don't understand the 704(b) regulations and how to think
in double entry. So there's that.
Other Coverage
Lew Taishoff, back in 2018, made note of an attempt by Second
Chance Inc to come into the case as an amicus. There was a brief
filed on May 22, 2018, but thanks to the Tax Court's lack of
transparency, I can't get my hands on it timely. So there may be
more on this case from me.
Theresa Schliep has something behind the Law360 paywall. [GN]
SOUTHERN STAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Star, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Dustin Lee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Southern Star, Inc., Jeremy
Fields, Case No. 2:20-cv-02012-PKH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 10, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act by denying payment of overtime compensation.
Southern Star, Inc. was founded in 1999. The Company's line of
business includes repairing radios and televisions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SQS LA LLC: Underpays Servers, Hutchinson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SQS LA LLC D/B/A SHAQUILLE'S; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV00976
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 9, 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 Plaintiff Hutchinson was employed by the Defendants as server.
SQS LA LLC D/B/A Shaquille's is engaged in the restaurant business.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
Alfred Movsesyan, Esq.
Katrina Castillo Espina, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Telephone: (818) 547-5300
Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com ,
alfred@boyamianlaw.com ,
katrina@boyamianlaw.com
- and -
Edgar Manukyan, Esq.
MANUKYAN LAW FIRM, APC
520 East Wilson Street, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818)559-4444
Facsimile: (888) 746-4420
E-mail: edgar@manukyanlawfirm.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Dismisses Count III in Mahdi's Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
captioned LAKENIA MAHDI, Plaintiff(s), v. JULIAN BUSH, et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 4:19-cv-00183-SRC. (E.D. Mo.).
In February 2019, Plaintiff Lakenia Mahdi filed a complaint in the
Missouri District Court alleging that Defendants Julian Bush, Lyda
Krewson, and John W. Hayden, Jr. violated Mahdi's First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights when St. Louis Metropolitan Police
Department officers arrested and charged Mahdi with resisting
arrest and forced her to sign a civil liability release agreement
for any violations of her civil rights in exchange for a reduction
of the resisting-arrest charges.
Mahdi commenced the suit on behalf of herself and as a putative
class action. Mahdi asserts the following claims: (1) deprivation
of rights to petition the courts in violation of the First
Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against all defendants
on behalf of the class, (2) declaratory judgment to void release
contracts on public policy grounds against all defendants on behalf
of the class, and (3) deprivation of civil rights in violation of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against Hayden on behalf of
Mahdi individually.
Mahdi asserts that Defendants have two policies and a custom that
are the "moving force" behind alleged unconstitutional conduct of
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") officers. She
first alleges the two policies: (1) the "Normal" policy pursuant to
which the City "normally" charges suspects on whom excessive force
is used with resisting arrest in municipal court (rather than state
court); and (2) the "Rec" policy under which municipal prosecutors
will plea bargain and "recommend" dismissal of
municipal-courtresisting-arrest-charges only if a defendant will
sign a liability waiver releasing the City from any civil lawsuits.
Mahdi then alleges SLMPD has a "custom" of "using unjustified
force with impunity in any case that an offender runs, pulls away,
or protest [sic]." They refer to this as a YRYP situation - you
run, you pay.
In their Motion to Dismiss, Krewson, Hayden, and Bush, in their
official capacities only (Municipal Defendants), seek to dismiss
the claims against them for failure to state a claim for municipal
liability. Specifically, Municipal Defendants assert that Mahdi
fails to state a claim in Count III because the count is premised
on a theory of respondeat superior liability and Mahdi has not
adequately pleaded that a policy, custom, or practice directly
caused officers to use excessive force during her arrest.
A municipality can be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for an
officer's misconduct where the misconduct is alleged to have
implemented or executed a policy, ordinance, regulation, decision,
or custom of the municipality. A municipality cannot be held
liable under Sec. 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Thus, the
Court analyzes the claim against Hayden, in his official capacity,
as a claim against the City.The Court applies the municipal
pleading standard under the cases of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) to Mahdi's Complaint.
Under the Iqbal/Twombly standard, a plaintiff must plead facts
plausibly showing that the alleged policy or custom subjects the
municipality to liability under Monell, Canton, and their progeny.
While courts recognize several different "policy" claims under Sec.
1983, Mahdi only alleges an "official policy" claim. The elements
of an "official policy" claim are: A deprivation of a plaintiff's
constitutional rights that results from the municipality's official
policy. It is not enough for plaintiff to show that the
municipality employed a person who violated the plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiff must show that the violation resulted from the
municipality's official policy.
The elements of a "custom" claim are: "(1) existence of a
continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct" by the municipality's employees; "(2) deliberate
indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct" by the
municipality's officials after notice of the misconduct; and (3)
the pattern of misconduct was the "moving force" behind the
plaintiff's injury. Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204.
The Court notes that the Complaint includes conclusory allegations
with no facts to support the conclusions. Ignoring Mahdi's
conclusory allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, the Court finds that Mahdi fails to sufficiently plead a
custom, pattern, or practice of use of excessive force by SLMPD
officers against individuals protesting their arrests; Mahdi fails
to sufficiently plead the YRYP custom.
Moreover, the Court opines that Mahdi's complaint lacks any facts
from which the Court can infer a "moving force/direct causal link"
between the Rec & Normal policies and the alleged YRYP custom.
Mahdi's complaint similarly lacks any facts from which the Court
could infer a "moving force/direct causal link" between the alleged
YRYP custom and the alleged unconstitutional conduct by the
officer.
Mahdi's well-pleaded allegations lack facts from which the Court
can infer a pattern or practice of misconduct. But even if the
Court were to accept all of Mahdi's allegations, factual and
conclusory, as true, they still fail to establish a plausible claim
to relief. Mahdi's allegations regarding the 17 instances do not
include specifics to plausibly establish a widespread pattern of
officers using excessive force against individuals who "protest
unlawful arrests," the Court points out.
Accepting that certain conclusory allegations as true, they do not
provide facts from which the Court could plausibly conclude that
either the Rec & Normal policies caused the YRYP custom or that the
YRYP custom caused the alleged unconstitutional conduct, the Court
adds.
Accordingly, the Court rules that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part. The Court dismisses Count III against John W.
Hayden, Jr. in his official capacity. In their Motion to Dismiss,
Defendants make several additional arguments. The Motion remains
pending as to those other arguments.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/utad47p
from Leagle.com
Lakenia Mahdi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Dailey , KINGDOM
LITIGATORS, INC A Public Interest Law Firm, 3131 McKinney Blvd.
Ste. 600, Dallas, Texas 75204 & Jermaine Wooten.
Julian L. Bush, Official Capacity Only, St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department, Chief of Police, officially & The City of St.
Louis Mayor, officially, Defendants, represented by Erin K. McGowan
, ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE & Robert H. Dierker , ST. LOUIS
CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.
STAR GROUP: Accord in Donnenfeld Suit Wins Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Star Group, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement in
the
class action suit entitled, M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc.,
Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc., has
been granted preliminary approval.
On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M.
Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc.
By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff
alleges he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his
protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserts
various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation
of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement.
The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of similarly
situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan
contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits.
No class has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts.
On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of
action. On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part
and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss.
The district court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent
inducement, but declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining
claims. The district court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to
attempt to replead his fraudulent inducement claim.
On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint attempts to replead a
fraudulent inducement claim and is otherwise substantially similar
or identical to the prior complaint.
On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent
inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended
complaint.
On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice.
On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff
participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations,
resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation,
subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of
a final settlement agreement and court approval.
In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all
discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement. On May 6,
2019, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement which remains pending before
the court.
On October 4, 2019, upon consent of all parties, Judge Roslynn R.
Mauskopf assigned the action to Magistrate Judge Steve I. Locke for
final disposition.
On December 4, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.
Star Group said, "The anticipated settlement is not an admission of
liability or breach to any customers by Petro and the Company
continues to believe the allegations lack merit. If the settlement
is not approved or finalized for any reason, the Company will
continue to vigorously defend the action; in that case, we cannot
assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Star Group, L.P., formerly Star Gas Partners, L.P., incorporated on
October 16, 1995, is a service energy provider. The Company is a
home heating oil and propane distributor and services provider. The
Company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel to customers on a
delivery only basis. The Company installs, maintains and repairs
heating and air conditioning equipment, and provides these services
outside its customer base, including service contracts for natural
gas and other heating systems. The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.
STELLAR PARTNERS: Faces Parker FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Parker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STELLAR PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00292 (M.D.
Fla., Feb. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
systematic, willful failure to provide to applicants a standalone
disclosure of its intent to obtain consumer reports for employment
purposes, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Obtaining consumer reports in any context is illegal, the Plaintiff
contends. To overcome the presumption of illegality and permit
access to consumer reports in the employment context, employers
like the Defendant must provide to applicants like the Plaintiff a
written disclosure of their intent to obtain a consumer report for
employment purposes.
As a systematic omission in its hiring process, the Defendant
failed to provide the Plaintiff and other consumers against whom it
took adverse employment actions with a copy of the background
report or a summary of rights under the FCRA before taking that
adverse employment action, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff sought employment to perform work for Stellar.
Stellar is one of the largest airport retail operators in the
United States, with more than thirty-eight locations across ten
U.S. airports in fourteen different states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main No: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
jcornell@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
- and -
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone (757) 930-3660
Facsimile (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
STEVENS TANKER: Henson Sues Over Violations of FLSA and WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Henson and Dana Saunders, on Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STEVENS TANKER DIVISION,
LLC and STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00158 (W.D. Tex.,
Feb. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required them to work
more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime pay. The
Plaintiffs contend that they were misclassified as exempt from
overtime pay under the FLSA, and were denied pay at the rate of
time and one half their regular rates of pay when they worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek.
Additionally, on October 15, 2019, the Defendants fired 500 workers
without 60 days of advance notice. As such, the Defendants are
liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiffs
at least 60 days of advance written notice of termination, as
required by the WARN Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants until they were
terminated on October 15, 2019.
The Defendants operated an oilfield services company that
transported sand to various oil wells.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
SUNNY RIDGE: Harrison Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
TINA HARRISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNNY RIDGE NURSING AND REHABILITATION
CENTER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-197 (E.D. Wis., February 7,
2020) is a class action on behalf of all other similarly situated
current and formerly hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant
for purposes of obtaining relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
Plaintiff Harrison was hired by Defendant as a Certified Nursing
Assistant at Defendant's "Sunny Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center" on or about July 16, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant practices an unlawful
compensation system that deprived their employees of their wages
earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including
all forms of non-discretionary compensation such as monetary
bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or rewards and payments for
overtime they worked.
Sunny Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC is a nursing and
rehabilitation center located at 3014 Erie Avenue, Sheboygan,
Wisconsin 53081.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WS 53005
Tel: (262)780-1953
Fax: (262)565-6469
Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
SWEET HOME: Fails to Pay Contractually Owed Wages, Trotman Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY TROTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE, LLC; SWEET HOME PRIMARY CARE;
TEKIA EZELL; and DARRYL EZELL, Case No. 200102059 (Pa. Com. Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that Sweet Home has
failed to pay the Plaintiff and others contractually owed wages, in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
According to the complaint, Sweet Home employs thousands of home
health aides and direct care workers, who provide home care support
and services to elderly and disabled clients. The Plaintiff and the
Class Members are employed directly by Sweet Home and have no
employment relationship with Sweet Home's clients.
Sweet Home's policy and normal operating procedure is to pay its
employees on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff and the Class Members'
regular payday was the Friday of every week. Beginning in December
2019, Sweet Home failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff and the
Class Members compensation on their Regular Payday, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Sweet Home Healthcare is a licensed, bonded and insured home
healthcare agency with offices in and throughout Pennsylvania &
Ohio. The Company specializes in live-in and live-out services from
as little as 4 hours a day up to 24 hours a day, short term and
long term assignments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey Green, Esq.
Shawn McBrearty, Esq.
SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C.
1101 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 119107
Telephone: (215) 574-0600
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bigelow Suit Moved from M.D. Florida to E.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ANDREA BIGELOW, on her own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. SYNEOS HEALTH,
LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-00028-D
(Filed Oct. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on Jan. 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00028 to the proceeding.
The case is a class action brought pursuant to the Family Medical
Leave Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is liable for
FMLA interference and/or retaliation based upon its uniform and
common policies and procedures of negatively utilizing and
considering protected FMLA leave and absences by employees, against
employees with regard to career advancement and pay opportunities.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in St. Johns County,
Florida.
Syneos Health is a NASDAQ listed American multinational contract
research organization based in Morrisville, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
TADASHI SHOJI: Cooks Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tadashi Shoji &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled Richard Cooks, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Tadashi Shoji &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01232-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal., Feb.
6, 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Tadashi Shoji & Associates Inc. manufactures and retails apparel
and accessories. The Company offers products, such as dresses,
hatbands and wallets, buckles and jewelry, gloves, and other
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
7710 Hazard Center Drive, Suite E104
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (760) 822-1911
Fax: (760) 452-7562
Email: amanda@amandabenedict.com
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Roderick
Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
et al., Case No. 8:14CV396.
In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.
Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that
were appealed. The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing
Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case
No. 8:14CV396 (U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska).
In the remaining case, plaintiff alleges that, when routing client
orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best
execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that
paid TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Company's order routing practices.
The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief. Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which defendants opposed.
On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed. On September
14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's objections,
rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision. The U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants' petition on
December 18, 2018. Briefing on the appeal is complete.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.
TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit and is unable to predict the outcome or the
timing of the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TD AMERITRADE: Settlement in Ciuffitelli Class Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
District Judge in the class action suit entitled, Lawrence
Ciuffitelli et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP,
Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and
Integrity Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, has entered an order
approving the class settlements.
An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.
A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on
September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.
The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of
Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after
June 9, 2010. Other groups of plaintiffs have filed non-class
action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against
these and other defendants.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitrations
have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc. The claims in
these actions include allegations that the sales of Aequitas
securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.
While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the
cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD
Ameritrade, Inc. customers purchased more than $140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade, Inc. served as custodian for
Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the
purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities.
In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than $600 million on the
Aequitas securities they purchased.
On August 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge in that case issued
findings and a recommendation that defendants' motions to dismiss
the pending complaint be denied with limited exceptions not
applicable to the Company. TD Ameritrade, Inc. and other defendants
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation, which plaintiffs opposed.
On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an opinion and
order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation.
In May 2019, TD Ameritrade, Inc. settled all of the non-class
action claims then pending for an immaterial amount paid by its
insurers. Plaintiffs and defendants Tonkon Torp and Integrity Bank
entered into agreements to settle the claims in the Ciuffitelli
case on a class basis for an aggregate amount of $14.6 million
subject to Court approval.
Following a mediation, on July 9, 2019, plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants in the Ciuffitelli case reached an agreement
to settle the claims on a class basis for $220 million subject to
Court approval. TD Ameritrade, Inc. agreed to contribute $20
million and its insurers $12 million of the aggregate settlement
amount. On December 16, 2019, the District Judge entered an order
approving the class settlements.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TIPP DISTRIBUTORS: Misrepresents Low Sugar Iced Tea, Taylor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tipp Distributors, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00712
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their iced
tea beverages purporting to be low in sugar.
The relevant front label statements include "Lightly Sweetened,"
"Steaz," statement of identity, Iced Green Tea–Peach, "flavored
with other natural flavors" and a vignette of peaches. The
Plaintiff contends that these representations are misleading
because though being represented as low in sugar, the drinks
actually contain objectively high amounts of sugar, as added sugar.
She asserts that the Defendant's branding and packaging of the
Products are designed to--and did--deceive, mislead, and defraud
consumers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has sold more of the
Products and at higher prices per unit than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers. The amount of sugar or other caloric
sweetening ingredients has a material bearing on price or consumer
acceptance of the Products because their absence causes consumers
to pay more for such Products. Had the Plaintiff and class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would
have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.49 per unit,
excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption
within this district.
Tipp Distributors, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells iced tea beverages purporting to be low in sugar under
the Steaz brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TOTAL QUALITY: Spisak Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Spisak and David Frate, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, an Ohio
limited liability company, and Kenneth Oaks, Case No. 1:20-cv-00277
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 7, 2020), is brought to recover for sales
representatives improperly paid overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendants for 50 to
65 hours per week but the Defendants failed to properly compensate
them for any of their overtime hours. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by
not paying the employees one-and-one-half times their regular rates
of pay for all work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiffs were full-time employees of the Defendants, who
worked as Sales Representatives.
Total Quality Logistics is a third-party logistics company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, that facilitates domestic
transportation nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Phone: (480) 382-5176
Fax: (480) 304-3805
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
- and –
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
6000 Freedom Square Dr.
Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 525-8890
Fax: (216) 642-5814
Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re TransDigm
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN.
The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio). The cases were originally filed
on August 10, 2017, and September 18, 2017 and were consolidated on
December 5, 2017.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability.
The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.
In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio).
The case was filed on September 19, 2017. The plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and other claims arising out of
substantially the same actions or inactions alleged in the
securities class actions.
This action has been stayed pending the outcome of a motion to
dismiss on the securities class action. "Although we are only a
nominal defendant in the derivative action, we could have
indemnification obligations and/or be required to advance the costs
and expenses of the officer and director defendants in the action,"
the Company said.
TransDigm said, "We intend to vigorously defend these matters and
believe they are without merit. We also believe we have sufficient
insurance coverage available for these matters. Therefore, we do
not expect these matters to have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition or results of operations. However, given the
preliminary status of the litigation, it is difficult to predict
the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of any
potential loss."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
UNIFIN INC: Bland Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAKISHA BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIN, INC., JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00356 (D.D.C.,
February 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged deceptive misleading and false debt
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an initial
collection letter from Defendant Unifin, on behalf of Jefferson
Capital, regarding an allegedly owed and unidentified debt.
However, the letter contains misleading information because it
failed to identify the original creditor to whom the alleged debt
is owed.
Defendants Unifin, Inc. and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC are both
debt collectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: 201-282-6500
Fax: 201-282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Expert Witnesses in Ramirez vs. US ICE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Columbia issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony in the case captioned WILMER
GARCIA RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-508 (RC).
(D.S.C.)
Plaintiffs are young adults who arrived in the United States as
unaccompanied alien children and were taken into the custody of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a component of the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). Upon turning eighteen, they
were transferred into the custody of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DH).
Whenever such a custody transfer occurs, ICE is statutorily
required to consider placement [of the 18-year-old] in the least
restrictive setting available after taking into account the alien's
danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.
But Plaintiffs allege that the agency sent them to adult detention
facilities without considering less restrictive placements the
result, Plaintiffs say, of a systematic failure to comply with the
applicable statutory mandate. They accordingly filed the class
action lawsuit against ICE, DHS, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security, alleging violations of Section 706(1) and Section 706(2)
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief.
First, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Exclude Certain of the
Opinions of Defendants' Experts Qing Pan and Joseph Gastwirth,
arguing that they have offered opinions outside of their
permissible expertise and role in the litigation. Plaintiffs have
also filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants' Expert
Gary Mead, arguing that Mead has offered inadmissible legal
opinions and that, despite being designated a rebuttal expert, his
opinions are not proper rebuttal.
* Opinions of Defendants' Experts Qing Pan and Joseph Gastwirth
Plaintiffs' first motion in limine challenges some, but not all, of
the opinions of Defendants' rebuttal experts Qing Pan and Joseph
Gastwirth. Their report is a rebuttal to the report of Plaintiffs'
expert statistician, Dr. Justin Lenzo.
In creating his report for Plaintiffs, Dr. Lenzo reviewed the
Age-Out Review Worksheets (AORWs) and other materials (SharePoint
materials) produced by ICE with respect to unaccompanied alien
children (UACs) who aged out of HHS custody during a discrete time
period. He also used statistical analysis methods to analyze the
frequencies with which there is any evidence of four Risk Factors
that are appropriately considered by ICE agents in the AORWs and
SharePoint materials as well as whether the Risk Factors or other
factors appear to drive decisions about whether or not to detain
Age-Outs. He concluded that for 82.0 percent of Age-Outs that ICE
detained during the Review Period, the AORFs and SharePoint
materials did not contain any evidence that might indicate a
potential danger to the community or to self, identified one or
more potential sponsors, and did not contain any evidence that
might indicate a flight risk that would not be addressed by release
to a sponsor.
Professors Pan and Gastwirth produced a rebuttal report for the
Government in which they attempted to replicate Dr. Lenzo's work by
reviewing and performing their own analysis on the data Defendants
produced to Plaintiffs. The Government disputes this
characterization and argues that the rebuttal report concludes that
sponsor availability, which they say Dr. Lenzo failed to consider,
was the most important factor. This is the sort of disagreement
about statistical methodology that the Court expects to see in an
expert statistician rebuttal report, and the Plaintiffs' motion
does not seek to exclude this testimony.
The Plaintiffs do ask the Court to exclude those portions of the
Professors' opinions that they say go beyond statistical issues to
reach impermissible legal conclusions that are outside the scope of
their expertise.
The Court agrees with much if not all of what Plaintiffs have to
say about the proper scope of expert testimony, but denies this
motion because of the difficulty of drawing an appropriate line on
the front end and because, in a bench trial, the Court can easily
discount the weight of any testimony the Professors might give that
goes beyond the proper scope of their expertise.
Professors Pan and Gastwirth should only testify to the extent that
their testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, rather than
unfounded assumptions, and only to the extent that it is the
product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the
facts of the case.
Unless and until the Government proves that it is actually the case
that filling out an AORW necessarily means the proper consideration
was given, the Court is not inclined to give much weight to expert
opinions that rely on this, or any other, disputed premise.
* Testimony of Defendants' Expert Gary Mead
Plaintiffs' second motion in limine seeks to exclude the entirety
of the rebuttal expert report of Gary Mead. Mr. Mead's report is a
rebuttal to the report of Plaintiffs' expert John Sandweg. Both
Mr. Mead and Mr. Sandweg are former ICE administrators. Mr. Mead
worked at ICE as acting director for the ICE Office of Detention
and Removal Operations (DRO) from 2006 to 2009 and as deputy
assistant director and later executive associate director of
Detention Management at ICE Enforcement Removal and Operations
(ERO) Unit, from 2009 to 2013.
Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Mead has no experience implementing,
complying with, or evaluating compliance with, Section
1232(c)(2)(B), which he admits was not enacted until just before
his retirement from ICE, and which he admits he had no familiarity
with prior to this lawsuit. As a result, they argue, his testimony
that, for example, ICE is in compliance with 8 U.S.C. Section
1232(c)(2)(B) as a result of highly trained, motivated and
dedicated officers, is improper as expert testimony.
Other examples of testimony from Mr. Mead's report that Plaintiffs
highlight include "[i]t is my expert opinion that FOJCs are
thoroughly familiar with and consistently apply the requirement to
consider the full range of less restrictive alternatives to
detention in each case" and "ICE officers are sworn to enforce the
law, including 8 U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(2)(B), and the evidence
shows that they do."
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that Mr. Mead's report does
not present proper expert testimony because it consists nearly
entirely of legal conclusions that are not based on reliable
principles and methods and which are only tangentially based on Mr.
Mead's own experience. Mr. Mead's expert report purports to offer
his opinion on whether ICE is following the requirements of the
statute, but this is the very question before the Court and is
therefore wholly inappropriate as a subject of expert testimony.
Here, Mr. Mead's conclusions in his expert report are phrased
squarely in terms of whether or not ICE is complying with the
statute. The entirety of the proceedings before the Court will be
aimed at answering the precise questions that Mr. Mead has answered
in conclusory fashion. This motion is therefore granted because Mr.
Mead's expert testimony will not assist the factfinder, the Court,
in this case.
The Court need not address the Plaintiffs' additional concerns that
Mr. Mead's opinion is not based on reliable principles and methods
and that he lacks familiarity with the statute.
* Plaintiff's Expert in Pediatrics
The third motion before the Court is from the Government, which
seeks to exclude as irrelevant the report and testimony of Dr.
Julie Linton, Plaintiffs' expert in pediatrics. Dr. Linton's
expert report addresses "the physical and mental health-related
effects of adult detention on immigrant teenagers who are detained
by ICE when they turn eighteen." The Government argues that Dr.
Linton's report is irrelevant to this case and is inadmissible
hearsay. The Plaintiffs respond that Dr. Linton's testimony on the
extent of the injuries they will face if they are detained will be
relevant as the Court evaluates whether injunctive relief is
appropriate.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that while Dr. Linton's
testimony may not touch on the central merits issues in the case,
it remains relevant to important questions of remedies. Dr.
Linton's testimony will self-evidently aid the Court in evaluating
the probability that the class members' injuries will be
irreparable. It will also aid the court with evaluating the two
balancing factors - weighing the Plaintiffs' hardships against
ICE's and comparing the private and public interests at stake.
In sum, the Court rules that:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain of the Opinions of
Defendants' Experts Qing Pan and Joseph Gastwirth is DENIED;
2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants'
Expert Gary Mead is GRANTED; and
3. Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of
Plaintiffs' Expert in Pediatrics is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/v4wf4kc from
Leagle.com
WILMER GARCIA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Reynolds -
erin.murphy@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Gianna Borroto ,
NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER, 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite
600 Chicago, IL 60604, Jonathan Fombonne -
jonathan.fombonne@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Michael B.
Slade - michael.slade@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Orla P.
O'Callaghan - orla.ocallaghan@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
Paul L. Quincy - paul.quincy@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
Ruben Loyo , NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER, 224 S. Michigan
Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60604 - tia.trout-perez@kirkland.com,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Amanda Jacobowski -
amanda.jacobowski@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Katherine E.
Melloy Goettel , National Immigrant Justice Center, 224 S. Michigan
Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60604, Patrick T. Haney -
patrick.haney@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Rebecca Wall
Forrestal - rebecca.forrestal@kirkland.com - KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
& Stephen R. Patton -stephen.patton@kirkland.com - KIRLAND &
ELLIS.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT, THOMAS HOMAN, Acting
Director of ICE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY & KIRSTJEN M.
NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants, represented by
Cara Elizabeth Alsterberg , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Christina Parascandola , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Colin
Abbott Kisor , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Evan Paul
Schultz , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Benjamin Jay Zeitlin , U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Kevin Charles Hirst , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Theo Nickerson , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
William Herrick Weiland , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Yamileth G.
Davila , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION.
UNITED STATES: Judge Terminates Asylum-Seeker's Deportation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorelei Laird, writing for LA Progressive, reports that Immigration
Judge Lee O'Connor of the San Diego immigration court did not mince
words when terminating the deportation case of a Salvadoran
asylum-seeker placed into the Department of Homeland Security's
"Remain in Mexico" program.
"DHS has acted without good faith in subjecting respondent[s] who
were encountered inside the United States to the program," O'Connor
wrote in September. "DHS cannot neglect to follow the law and then
subject respondents to a procedure which it could not have pursued
if it had followed the law."
But outside of O'Connor's courtroom and a few others in Southern
California, that appears to be exactly what's happening. The DHS is
placing immigrants who were not arrested at the border—some of
whom have spent considerable time inside the United States—into
its Remain in Mexico program. That's even though the law DHS says
authorizes the program requires that the immigrant be "arriving on
land."
Classifying immigrants as "arriving aliens" allows the government
to deny them a chance for release from detention.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement referred questions about
misclassifying immigrants to its parent agency, DHS, which did not
respond to requests for comment. But O'Connor's decision and
lawyers for immigrants say the government is manufacturing the
facts required to define people arrested in the interior U.S. as
"arriving." Once the government arrests them, it sends them to
Mexico to await hearings in the United States. When they cross the
border for those hearings, the argument goes, they become "arriving
aliens."
"It's a circular argument that the government is making," says San
Diego immigration attorney Bashir Ghazialam. "What led them to go
to the border and become 'arriving aliens' is that they were
illegally returned to Mexico."
"Remain in Mexico," officially known as the "Migrant Protection
Protocols" or MPP, was announced in late 2018 as a program for
asylum-seekers at the border. The program's DHS implementation
memo says it relies on Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, which allows the attorney general to return an
applicant for admission "who is arriving on land (whether or not at
a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous
to the United States."
But "arriving alien" has a legal definition, attorneys say, and
people arrested within the U.S. for not having papers don't
generally meet it. Rather, they are typically "aliens present
without admission. "The distinction matters; "arriving aliens"
have access to fewer forms of relief in immigration law than
"aliens present without admission. "Most crucially, "arriving
aliens" are not eligible for a hearing on bond—that is, they have
no right to ask a judge to decide whether they should be permitted
to pay for their freedom.
The government has been taking advantage of this crucial difference
between "arriving aliens" and "aliens present without admission."
Attorney Patty Ojeda of the American Bar Association's Immigrant
Justice Project of San Diego says DHS typically argues that these
immigrants are not entitled to a bond hearing. She's been able to
convince judges that the "arriving alien" designation was improper
for the six clients she's had in this situation, but overall, very
few people in MPP are granted bond.
Results have been mixed for attorney Leah Chavarria of the Jewish
Family Service of San Diego, which also handles MPP cases.
Chavarria says most judges she's seen will have the bond hearing --
but many ultimately agree with the government, denying bond because
they don't have jurisdiction to grant it to an "arriving alien."
And that's just in San Diego. University of Texas Law professor
Denise Gilman, who represents immigrants directly as the head of
her school's immigration law clinic, says Texas judges have been
"completely fine with it." That's despite the fact that the
government often files a charging document saying immigrants are
both "arriving aliens" and "aliens present without admission,
"which -- as O'Connor's ruling points out—are mutually exclusive
categories. In other cases, the government reissues documents and
changes the designation to "arriving alien" once the immigrant
comes to the first hearing.
Even if a judge dismisses these deportations, there's a big catch:
It won't necessarily help. The government can simply refile the
cases, which allows it to send the immigrants to Mexico again. It
can also appeal, which permits it to imprison the immigrant until
the appeal is decided -- a process that typically takes several
years.
Ghazialam has clients in both situations. He's hoping to include
some of them in a lawsuit filed by another San Diego immigration
lawyer December 12, which they plan to convert to a class action.
In CPG et al. v. Archambeault, a Guatemalan woman and her minor
child who were misclassified and put into MPP argue that they are
in unlawful detention that violates their statutory and due process
rights. An immigration judge terminated their case, but the
government nonetheless took them into custody pending an appeal.
"They can be stuck out in Mexico, and be subjected to all kinds of
threats and everything while their appeal is still pending," says
Ghazialam, referring to the unchecked violence in parts of Mexico
that has led to kidnappings and murders of immigrants awaiting
their hearings. "This is how the government succeeds in keeping
people out of the country." [GN]
UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Class Action Over Airport Cash Seizures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fionnuala O'Leary, writing for The Sun, reports that a family are
suing the TSA after an elderly man's $82K life savings stored in a
plastic box were seized at a US airport for no apparent reason.
Terrence Rolin, 79, from Pennsylvania and his daughter Rebecca
Brown are lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in January, after
agents confiscated Rolin's "suspicious" $82,373 in cash.
Brown was visiting her dad in Pittsburgh back in August when he
asked her to put his savings in a joint checking account back in
Boston.
But TSA and DEA agents at Pittsburgh International Airport grilled
Brown about the large cash sum when she was flying back to
Massachusetts before taking it.
Speaking in a press release, Brown said: "My father and his parents
worked hard for this money, and the government shouldn't be able to
reach into his pocket and take it.
"We did nothing wrong and haven't been charged with any crime, yet
the DEA is trying to take my father's life savings.
"His savings should be returned right away, and the government
should stop taking money from Americans who are doing something
completely legal."
Her dad can't pay for dental work or repairs to his truck since
authorities notified him about permanently seizing his savings.
Brown had checked online to confirm carrying cash on a flight is
legal and put it in her carry-on bag.
Local reports say she passed through security with the money before
being approached at the gate by a DEA agent and a state trooper.
They demanded her elderly father back up her story, calling him
from the airport, court documents state.
But Rolin -- a retired railroad worker who reportedly has cognitive
issues -- was groggy during the 7 am call.
The agent allegedly told Brown her answers "don't match" before
taking the cash.
Rolin said he learned from his parents to keep money hidden in the
home, not in banks.
He became nervous about holding onto such a large amount of cash,
reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Brown and her siblings were supposedly planning to surprise Rolin
with a new truck, which her father would not have known when he
took the phone call.
The federal class action lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice
accuses the Drug Enforcement Administration and TSA of "treating
American citizens like criminals" without any evidence.
But the Virginia-based non profit say Brown and Rolin's situation
isn't unique.
The Institute for Justice claim the DEA have a history of civil
asset forfeiture, when authorities seize suspect money and property
- even if the owner isn't charged with anything.
Police advocates say it's a vital tool in disrupting drug
trafficking by seizing the money.
The lawsuit argues this policy of taking funds over $5,000 from
travelers without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.
This key segment of the US Constitution prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Senior attorney at the Institute for Justice Dan Alban said: "You
don't forfeit your constitutional rights when you try to board an
airplane.
"It is time for TSA and federal law enforcement to stop seizing
cash from travelers simply because the government considers certain
amounts of cash 'suspicious.'
"We are trying to bring about institutional change and fix this
terribly broken civil forfeiture system."
Back in 2016, USA Today revealed federal agents regularly mine the
travel information of US travelers for narcotics profiling purposes
-- but they rarely use the information to make arrests or build a
case.
The publication reported DEA units assigned to patrol 15 national
airports seized a whopping $209 million in cash from at least 5,200
people over the previous 10 years.
The Justice Department Inspector General found the DEA seized $4.15
billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the
previous decade.
The official report found the majority of these cases never yielded
any criminal charges.
Most of the seizures reportedly happened at airports, train
stations, bus terminals, and at traffic stops thanks to the DEA's
alleged network of confidential informants.
The Justice Department noted the process of civil asset forfeiture
poses a risk to civil liberties.
The TSA was previously reprimanded in 2016 by the Justice
Department when it emerged they allegedly recruited an informant
who was promised a cut of the confiscated cash. [GN]
USABLE CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Simmons Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Simmons, Billie Overstreet and James Young, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USABLE
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-00137-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 7, 2020),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation for all hours that they
worked.
The Plaintiffs assert that they were misclassified as salaried
employees and were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40
each week. The Defendants have deprived them of overtime
compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as I.T. Security
Analysts.
The Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
VALET LIVING: Faces Trujillo Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valet Living, LLC.
The case is captioned as Anthony Trujillo, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Valet Living, LLC. a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2020-00273711-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 17,
2020).
The lawsuit involves employment-related issues.
Valet Living provides property management services. The Company
offers building maintenance, security, waste and recycling
collection, and bill payment services for residential
communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY
3200 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661-4238
Telephone: (916) 960-2080
E-mail: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com
VISA INC: 2018 Amended Settlement Agreement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that the district court in the
Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) putative class action
has granted final approval of the 2018 Amended Settlement Agreement
relating to claims by the Damages Class, which was subsequently
appealed.
On November 20, 2019, the district court denied the bank
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought against them by
the putative Injunctive Relief Class.
On December 13, 2019, the district court granted final approval of
the 2018 Amended Settlement Agreement relating to claims by the
Damages Class, which was subsequently appealed.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Nuts for Candy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit filed on December 31, 2019, a motion to dismiss and
for attorneys' fees and costs based on the settlement reached
between the parties and the grant of final approval of the 2018
Amended Settlement Agreement as discussed in Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Putative Class Actions.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
ZARA USA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Sedaghatpour Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sedaghatpour, individually and on behalf of other
individuals similarly situated v. ZARA USA, INC. a New York
corporation, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01272 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2020), is brought to challenge
the systemic illegal employment practices of the Defendants
resulting in violation of the California Labor Code, California
Business and Profession Code, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay wages for
all hours worked by the Plaintiff; to properly compensate overtime
wages; to provide rest break; to provide meal breaks; to pay
appropriate compensation for split shifts; to pay the Plaintiff all
wages owed at termination; and to provide the Plaintiff with clear,
standalone written disclosures before obtaining a credit or
background report in compliance with the statutory mandates.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "Sales Associate"
in the men's department.
ZARA USA, INC. is a New York corporation that conducts business in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
[*] Mayer Brown Attorneys Tackle WLF's Expert Testimony Monograph
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan M. Tager, Esq. -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- Craig Woods, Esq.
-- cwoods@mayerbrown.com -- Reginald Goeke, Esq. --
rgoeke@mayerbrown.com -- Daniel E. Jones, Esq. --
djones@mayerbrown.com -- Carl Summers, Esq., Matthew Sostrin, Esq.,
and Jonathan Klein, Esq., of Mayer Brown, in an article for Mondaq,
report that edited and authored by Mayer Brown lawyers—and
featuring a foreword by Facebook, Inc. Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel Paul S. Grewal who previously served as a US
Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California --
Washington Legal Foundation's Monograph "Admissibility of Expert
Testimony: Manageable Guidance for Judicial Gatekeeping" assesses
the key principles federal and state judges should follow when
assessing the admissibility of expert testimony in civil
litigation. Expert testimony not only can decide the outcome of
products-liability and toxic-tort lawsuits, but also can impact key
rulings such as class-action certification and damages
determinations. Judges must act as "gatekeepers" to ensure that
juries are shielded from junk science and false expertise.
The Monograph's first part discusses four aspects of the judicial
gatekeeping function that cut across different substantive areas of
law. The authors first explain how the US Supreme Court's "Daubert
trilogy" of decisions established the scope of a judge's
gatekeeping duties. They next illustrate how "hired-gun" experts
complicate a juror's task of deciding liability and how courts can
mitigate n mitigate the confusion. They go on to address how courts
must answer a "recurring riddle" -- does the expert's testimony
implicate the evidence's admissibility (a judicial function) or
does it go to its weight (a jury's responsibility). Finally, the
authors analyze the tools judges can use to weed out junk science,
including holding Daubert hearings and appointing independent
technical experts.
The Monograph's second part delves deeper into these critical
aspects of gatekeeping through case studies. The authors explore in
detail judicial best-practices for determining relevance and
reliability in four areas of law: (1) medical causation; (2)
insurance bad faith; (3) class-action certification; and (4)
valuation testimony for damage calculations. The medical-causation
case study offers especially valuable insights on how judges should
manage experts testifying on general and specific causation.
Electronic copies of this Monograph are available online at
www.wlf.org. Inquire about additional hard copies with WLF Legal
Studies Division Chief Counsel Glenn Lammi (glammi@wlf.org). [GN]
[*] Reformers Want Disclosure of 3rd-Party MDL Funding
------------------------------------------------------
Anne A. Gruner, Esq. -- AAGruner@duanemorris.com -- Justin M. L.
Stern, Esq. -- JMLStern@duanemorris.com -- and Nicholas M.
Centrella, Jr., Esq. -- NMCentrella@duanemorris.com -- of Duane
Morris LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that it is no secret
that third-party litigation funding, or TPLF, has become an
increasingly common practice. One area particularly affected by
this trend is that of mass tort actions and multidistrict
litigations, where funding is now more than ever being utilized to
finance voluminous and prolonged proceedings.
While courts have historically been reluctant to require disclosure
of funding agreements and information, precedent suggests that
different approaches may be warranted in the MDL context because of
considerations unique to those proceedings -- including potential
for bias, distortions of control and decision-making as between
litigants and funders, and conflicts of interest between funders
and the judiciary.
Against this backdrop, advocates of disclosure have taken a
proactive role in seeking further changes to rules of discovery and
disclosure to address these issues. Litigants should be aware of
these emerging efforts toward change, and the reasons underlying
them, as the use of litigation funding continues to rise.
Background: Courts Have Hesitated to Require TPLF Disclosure
In recent years, courts have largely resisted calls for
transparency, sometimes in the form of motions to compel, by
finding that TPLF-related documents are not discoverable on the
basis that such agreements are simply not relevant to the issues
being tried, and, to a lesser extent, may warrant work-product
protection.
In 2015, the defendants in Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, a
putative class action, moved the court to compel certain plaintiffs
to produce documents including TPLF agreements. The defendants
argued that they were entitled "to explore whether there may be a
risk that the ... plaintiffs' funding arrangements could affect the
strategic decisions they will make on behalf of the class" and that
the "plaintiffs' ability to finance the prosecution of this class
action is also relevant to whether or not they 'will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class'" as required by Rule
23.3
Nevertheless, the court found that defendants had offered "no
nonspeculative basis" for their concerns, and therefore concluded
that "defendants did not show that the requested documents are
relevant to any party's claim or defense."
In early 2018, in Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Seagate
Technology (US) Holdings Inc., the defendants sought access to
communications and agreements between the plaintiff and litigation
funding organizations. The court found that the materials were
"primarily, perhaps exclusively, for the purpose of preparing for
litigation" and thus were protected work product.
In reaching its conclusion, the court disregarded the defendants'
arguments centering on the "non-legal" nature of the relationship
between the plaintiff and the TPLF firm: "Even if the Court were to
fully credit this argument and consider the relationships to be
commercial, the materials nonetheless fall within work-product
immunity because they were communications with Plaintiff's agents
and in anticipation of litigation."
A few months later, in May 2018, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio took a
slightly different approach in the MDL context in ruling on the
requested disclosure of TPLF materials in the In re National
Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL. He issued a succinct order,
requiring that any attorney in the MDL that had obtained
third-party litigation financing submit documentation of the
financing agreement to the court for in camera review.
Among the requested documentation were sworn affidavits from
attorneys and lenders affirming that any financing agreements did
not create a conflict under a number of specified criteria,
including with respect to the funders' ability to control or
dictate the direction of the litigation. Judge Polster further
required that any attorneys in the MDL who subsequently entered
into third-party litigation financing arrangements with lenders
comply with the requirements of the order, threatening that the
court "[would] deem unenforceable any [TPLF] agreements that are
not compliant with this Order."
Despite its mandated submission of TPLF documents for in camera
review, the court concluded its order by stating that "[a]bsent
extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not allow discovery
into [TPLF] financing."
However, this approach was not subsequently replicated in another
case that, although not an MDL, confronted similar issues. In
January 2019, the court in MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron
Technology Inc. ruled on defendant Micron's attempts to obtain TPLF
agreements to which plaintiff MLC was a party, stating that "MLC
has complied with the local rules and disclosed persons and
entities with a financial interest in this case as defined by 28
U.S.C. § 455(d)(1), (3), and (4)."
In response to Micron's arguments that TPLF agreements may shed
light on bias or conflicts of interest, the court judged such
assertions speculative and found that case law advocated by the
defendants merely stood for the proposition that TPLF agreements
"could be discoverable when there was a specific, articulated
reason to suspect bias or conflict of interest."
Two months later, defendants in Benitez v. Lopez sought discovery
of TPLF agreements on the grounds that they could be relevant to
discerning the plaintiffs' motive or credibility.14 The court
disagreed, holding that "the financial backing of a litigation
funder is as relevant to credibility as the Plaintiff's personal
financial wealth, credit history, or indebtedness."
Although the defendants raised the potential that the third-party
funder could intervene and control the litigation, the court was
not persuaded; it stated that the "[d]efendants' argument that they
are entitled to understand the litigation funder's 'ability to
intervene' and 'dictate the legal strategies or settlement
decisions' is just a series of conclusory and irrelevant
assertions."
Why MDLs Are Unique in the Context of TPLF
It is not difficult to see why the desire for fairness, consistency
and uniformity on TPLF disclosure requirements in MDLs in
particular has sparked recent attention. Simply reviewing the
numbers makes it evident that determinations on disclosure of TPLF
agreements can affect many litigants, and can have a critical
impact on case trajectory.
To illustrate, a study in March 2019 from Lawyers for Civil Justice
reported that just 24 MDLs represented more than 140,000 individual
lawsuits, and MDLs overall made up 52% of the federal docket. Given
the consolidation of potentially thousands of similar cases in any
given MDL, these types of proceedings may serve as attractive
investment vehicles for third-party funders who seek magnified
returns on their investment.18 And, as they are expensive to
maintain, plaintiffs lawyers may be more inclined to utilize
outside funding in MDLs than in individual lawsuits.
Proponents of disclosure have also cited various issues that
uniquely affect MDLs and that may warrant a greater need for
transparency to ensure that the funding transaction does not
improperly distort or control the litigation. For example, it has
been argued that plaintiff-side funding in MDLs may lead to a rise
in claims (including meritless claims) where funding is relatively
cheap and favors volume over substance.
The existence of funding may also make it more difficult to reach
settlement when resources are unlimited, and where the parties
receiving funding need to also account for the interests of their
outside funders, whose interests may not always directly align with
the parties they finance.21 Against these considerations and
precedent, several approaches outside the courtroom have recently
been undertaken in furtherance of efforts favoring disclosure of
TPLF agreements, particularly in the mass action and MDL context.
Developments Signaling Possible Disclosure Requirements
In January 2019, a group of general counsel representing some of
the largest U.S. corporations submitted a letter to the secretary
of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure, advocating for an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) that would require, in civil cases,
"disclosure of agreements giving a non-party or non-counsel the
contingent right to receive compensation from the proceeds of the
litigation."
The letter, which argued that such disclosure would better enable
litigants to identify the real parties in interest, noted the trend
over the past nearly 50 years in favor of disclosure, highlighting
among other things, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure change in
1970 that required disclosure of insurance agreements in civil
cases. In October 2019, the same group of general counsel wrote to
the Rules Committee once more, stressing the need for mandatory
TPLF disclosures, but this time arguing specifically for disclosure
in MDL proceedings.
Additionally, in February 2019, several senators reintroduced the
Litigation Funding Transparency Act to promote transparency in
third-party litigation funding. The bill would amend Title 28 of
the U.S. Code to require disclosure in both the class action and
MDL contexts. The proposed Section 1407 of Title 28 of the U.S.
Code would apply specifically to MDLs, and would require plaintiffs
counsel to disclose "the identity of any commercial enterprise,
other than the named parties or counsel, that has a right to
receive payment" contingent on relief in the plaintiffs' favor by
either settlement or judgment.
The bill would also require the production of the financing
agreement itself, either at the time that the action is
consolidated or coordinated or within 10 days of the execution of
the agreement if entered into after the action has begun. Whereas
the order issued by Judge Polster in the opioid MDL imposed an
ongoing obligation to make similar disclosures to the court for in
camera review, the proposed legislation would require production of
the agreements for all parties to inspect and copy.
Importantly, the bill provides that production of such agreements
would be required "except as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the
court," meaning that judges would retain the ability to block the
disclosure in certain cases.
The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has
also explored the topic of disclosure. The Advisory Committee had
previously considered the issue in January 2019, when it suggested
that one approach to disclosure would be to consider the
disclosures that would be necessary for judges to evaluate issues
related to recusal. This rationale underpins the current disclosure
requirements in the Federal Rules: the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation Rule 7.1 requires only defense counsel to
make corporate disclosures mirroring those made under the Federal
Rules, which the committee's 2002 notes to the Federal Rules state
are aimed at aiding judges in decisions of recusal.
With the advent of corporate litigation funding, such an approach
toward disclosure favors transparency on both sides of an MDL
proceeding and adequately permits judges — and the parties — to
ascertain all the potential parties in interest. As noted by
defense counsel in multiple cases cited above, disclosure of all
parties in interest may inform strategic decisions related to
valuing -- and ultimately resolving -- MDL proceedings.
In October 2019, the Advisory Committee announced that it had moved
the third-party litigation funding issue from the MDL subcommittee
for consideration at the full committee level. While the
subcommittee concluded that rulemaking geared specifically towards
multidistrict litigation was not needed at the time, the growing
importance of third-party funding in the MDL context justified the
topic for consideration at the committee level.23
The discussion surrounding disclosure, particularly in these larger
proceedings, is gaining prominence -- and TPLF is unlikely to go
away soon. Bloomberg Law reports that survey results indicate a
high interest in plaintiff-side litigation funding that outpaces
the level of funding currently available, a key indicator of
potential growth in the industry.24 As a result, counsel on both
sides of multidistrict litigation proceedings, and in litigation
more generally, should expect evolving arguments on litigation
funding disclosure, and perhaps even codification of some of the
proposals currently being considered. [GN]
[*] Trump Admin. Steps Up Push to Sway Judges in Antitrust Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kadhim Shubber, writing for The Financial Times, reports that the
Trump administration embarked on an extensive effort to sway judges
in antitrust cases in 2019, with the justice department filing more
legal arguments in competition lawsuits where it was not a party
over 12 months than the Obama administration did in eight years.
Makan Delrahim, who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2017 to lead
the antitrust division, has spearheaded an "amicus programme" under
which justice department lawyers are increasingly inserting
themselves into antitrust litigation to advise judges how to rule.
The result has been a flurry of legal briefs that have pushed
patent holder-friendly positions, undercut lawsuits brought by
other enforcement agencies and placed the justice department on the
side of Mr Delrahim's former lobbying client, Qualcomm, the
chipmaker.
The antitrust chief has been "especially aggressive" in weighing in
on cases where the justice department is not a party, said Jonathan
Jacobson, an antitrust partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
who called the effort "absolutely the right thing to do". He said
Mr Delrahim had probably "filed more of these briefs per month than
anyone in division history".
In fiscal year 2019, the antitrust division filed 20 briefs in
district and appeals court cases in which it was not a party,
outstripping by far any year since 1970, the earliest date for
which the justice department provides records. The increase in
amicus brief activity contrasts with the historically low number of
criminal antitrust prosecutions the division brought last year.
We have not been able to please all of the people all of the time.
But of course that is fine with us
Michael Murray, DoJ antitrust division
The drive has drawn fire from Democrats like David Cicilline, the
chair of the House antitrust subcommittee, who claimed in a letter
in May that the division was "prioritising side projects over its
main job". He accused Mr Delrahim of running the division "more
like an industry-funded think-tank than our nation's premier
antitrust enforcer".
A justice department spokesman said: "The antitrust division's
amicus briefs in private litigation has been a highly efficient and
a high-impact use of our resources to promote competition." In a
letter responding to Mr Cicilline in August, the division said "the
vast majority" of its resources were focused on enforcement
activity.
Historically, the division has become involved in cases at the
Supreme Court, or when invited by appeals court judges.
Mr Delrahim has moved earlier in the litigation process, filing
briefs in district courts.
The spike in briefings has reshaped how antitrust lawyers represent
corporate clients. Increasingly, persuading the justice department
to weigh in on your side is a part of antitrust litigation
strategy, according to defence lawyers. "This is the sort of thing
you want to put on your front burner, whereas it was an
afterthought before," said one.
Mr Delrahim, a patent lawyer by training, has weighed in on patent
disputes to advance his view that intellectual property holders owe
little duty under antitrust law to provide licences to buyers, at
times citing his own speeches to urge restraint by judges.
Along with the states of Louisiana, Ohio and Texas, he has argued
in support of a former client, Qualcomm, as it tries to fend off a
class-action lawsuit. In a related case, from which Mr Delrahim is
recused, the division has gone to war with its sister agency, the
Federal Trade Commission, to defend Qualcomm from the commission's
lawsuit.
Officials in other agencies have also felt the division step on
their toes as Mr Delrahim has expanded the amicus programme.
When the city of Oakland sued its football team, the Oakland
Raiders, and the National Football League for the Raiders' planned
moved to Las Vegas, Mr Delrahim knocked down part of the city's
argument.
In Washington state, where the Democratic attorney-general has led
a crackdown on fast-food chains that bar franchise-holders from
poaching workers from within the chain, the antitrust chief
defended the practice in a set of class-action lawsuits.
Recently, Mr Delrahim has fought several Democratic-led states that
are suing to block T-Mobile's takeover of Sprint, a deal he
approved with divestitures. A decision on that matter is expected
this month.
Michael Kades, director at Equitable Growth, which seeks tougher
antitrust enforcement, criticised Mr Delrahim for acting like "the
tsar of all antitrust enforcement", adding: "They shouldn't be
interfering in someone else's decision to enforce."
Officials in the antitrust division have shrugged off the
controversy. "We have not been able to please all of the people all
of the time. But of course that is fine with us, because we are not
in the business of satisfying a particular constituency,"said
Michael Murray, a deputy to Mr Delrahim, in a speech last year.
He noted that beyond the Washington state hiring cases, the
division had attacked the use of no-poaching agreements in other
contexts, such as a case where two medical schools in North
Carolina had agreed not to hire each other's staff.
The increased activity of the amicus programme served to discourage
parties from "making the more extreme versions of their arguments"
for fear that the antitrust division would appear and "undermine
their credibility", Mr Murray said.
The justice department spokesman said the division "values its
relationships with state enforcers." Its arguments advanced
"longstanding" positions on the law, he added. "We have advocated
for narrower interpretations of antitrust exemptions and
immunities."
Judges have received the interest of the justice department with
varying levels of appreciation, irritation and bemusement.
One district judge last year told an antitrust division lawyer it
was a "pleasure "to hear their views, while another thought their
briefings were "unhelpful".
In a hearing for the Oakland case, the judge in San Francisco asked
one federal attorney whether they had really flown all the way from
Washington.
"Wow," the judge said. "That is dedication." [GN]
*********
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 ***