/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200302.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 44 Headlines 108TH STREET: Moreyra Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL 3M CO: 150 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court 3M CO: New York Class Action Over Water Contamination Ongoing 3M CO: Parties in St. John Case Seek to Extend Stay Through April 3M COMPANY: Faces Manuel Suit Over AFFF Products in S. Carolina ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Faces Moultrie FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Court Dismisses Robertson FDCPA Suit AMERICAN FLAGGING: Eliely Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERICAN FREEDOM: Illegal Collects Biometric Info, Ramos Claims AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premium ANDREW WILKIN: Silva Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ASSET RECOVERY: Osby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices AT&T CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Calloway FLSA Suit Denied AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California AXON ENTERPRISES: Only Fraudulent Omission Claim Remains in Richey BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Durkee Class Suit in S.D. California BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Submit Claims in GSE Bond Suit Extended BECTON DICKINSON: 14,330 Hernia Product Claims Pending BECTON DICKINSON: 2,650 Filter Product Claims Pending BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 750 Women's Health Product Claims BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Underway CDI CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vasquez Suit Claims CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Photographs COBALT COMMERCIAL: Ruiz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA COLLECTO INC: Oh Sues in New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Richardson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. CULLIGAN INT'L: Kapp Suit Moved From Illinois to E.D. Wisconsin DACOTAH BANK: Schultes Sues in North Dakota Over FDCPA Violation DARTMOUTH CLUBS: Truehart Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages DEVA CONCEPTS: Schwartz Sues Over Defective DevaCurl Products DEVACURL: Women File Class Action for Hair Fall, Flaky Scalps DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement to End Court Oversight of DYRS DKJJ DELI: Nunez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages DRAEGER'S SUPER: Faces Thompson Suit in California Superior Court DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA DSV AIR & SEA: Suren Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics EF EDUCATION: Sensibaugh Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thibodeaux Suit Over FCRA Violation EVENFLO COMPANY: Matthews Files Suit in District of Massachusetts FACILITIES EXPERTS: Stoneman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lee Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA G & A RESTAURANT: Whitehurst Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky GILEAD SCIENCES: MSP Antitrust Suit Moved From Florida to Calif. GLA COLLECTION: Adair Sues in M.D. Alabama Over FDCPA Violation HABIT RESTAURANTS: Stein Securities Suit Challenges Yum! Merger HILLSBOROUGH TITLE: Faces Urban Suit Over Illegal Closing Fees HUDSON HALL: Stewart Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL JOSIE MARAN: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation KELLY SERVICES: Stanley FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California KEMET CORP: Settlement in Capacitors' Suit Awaits Court Approval L BRANDS: Faces Velazquez FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report LANNETT CO: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement in Pa. Suit LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend E.D. Pennsylvania Class Action LEGACY INSURANCE: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls LOUISIANA: Expropriation Damages Award in Crooks Reversed in Part MATTEL INC: NOMERS Sues Over Decline in Stock's Market Value METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE: Rosario Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Sezanayev Suit Over False Collection Letter NAT'L FOOTBALL: Minister to Sue Over Super Bowl 54 Halftime Show NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NEW YORK CITY: Class Action Lawsuit Targets Greedy Landlords NEW YORK CITY: Special Education Complaints Spark Class Action NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Breuer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York NYCRC LLC: TPBC Sues Over Fraud in GWBBS Development Project OAK TREE COUNTRY CLUB: Owners Settle Class Action Lawsuit OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Florida OMNI SPECIALTY: Thiry Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to W.D. Missouri ON GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay PATTERN ENERGY: Arbitrage Fund Challenges Merger With CPPIB PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sgarlata Class Suit Under Appeal PETER NYGARD: Class Action Alleges Rape, Sexual Trafficking PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Decertifies Class in Radford FLSA Suit PNC FINANCIAL: Komorksi Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PRIMO WATER: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Cott Corporation QUINSTREET INC: Faces Mousa TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls RAPID RESPONSE: Smith Sues in N.D. New York Over TCPA Violation RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Saldana FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey RICHEMONT NORTH: Joye Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California RING LLC: Smart Home Security Devices Are Unsecured, Politi Says SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Sullivan Denied SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Change Venue in Pizana False Ad Suit Denied SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Melillo Suit Moved From New York to Florida SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Scholl Suit Moved From Minn. to S.D. Florida SANOFI-AVENTIS: Chatman Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. Florida SAVE-A-LOT HOLDINGS: Mislabels Truli Vanilla Drinks, Swantek Says SHANTA'S BAKERY: Dario Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California TALLGRASS ENERGY: Scarantino Objects Proposed Sale to Blackstone THERMON GROUP: Faces Class Suit in Quebec of THS Heating Elements TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Suit Over Decline in Share Price TYLER MEMORY: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay JSA Benefits Under ERISA, Brown Says UNITED STATES: Texas Northern Dist. Dismisses w/o Prejudice Valle VCI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Olivas Employment Suit in California VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Faces Mabry FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado WECOMPETE INC: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts WEST 4TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Santos Claims WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Stewart TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls WESTPAC BANKING: Clients Fear Setback in Insurance Class Action WW NORTH AMERICA: Newman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California YOUNG MEN'S: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Brown Alleges [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 ********* 108TH STREET: Moreyra Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEMESIO TORRES MOREYRA and JESUS CHALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 108TH STREET OWNERS CORP., and JORGE RAMON CENTURION, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-00554 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from underpaid minimum wages. Mr. Moreya was employed from Nov. 2013 until June 2018 as a construction worker, and performing other miscellaneous duties. Mr. Chale was employed from Nov. 2014 until Jan. 2019 performing the same duties with Mr. Moreya. The Defendant is a homeowners' association.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718 263-9591 3M CO: 150 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam ----------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that 150 putative class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). 3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2002. As of December 31, 2019, 150 putative class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts where current or former airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were located. As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state or territory attorneys general. In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs, and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical monitoring. The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue to be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to federal court. As of December 31, 2019, there were 147 cases in the MDL, 142 of which name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of conducting discovery. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court -------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the proceedings in the "Billing" case remains stayed. In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the "Billings" case). Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: New York Class Action Over Water Contamination Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit in New York over water contamination. In New York, 3M is defending 47 individual cases and one putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (Saint-Gobain), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. (DuPont). The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain's and Honeywell's facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick. The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA. The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, 3M is defending eight cases filed by Nassau County drinking water providers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M, DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the contamination of plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds. These cases are in the preliminary stages of litigation. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Parties in St. John Case Seek to Extend Stay Through April ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that parties in the "St. John Case" have submitted a joint motion to extend the stay of the case through April 2020. A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The St. John case was stayed through January 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and another case. The parties have submitted a joint motion to extend the stay through April 2020. Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: Faces Manuel Suit Over AFFF Products in S. Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is captioned as Orrel Manuel and Carolyn Manuel v. 3M COMPANY, National Foam Inc., Arkema Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Dowdupont Inc., The, Kidde-Fenwal Inc., United Technologies Corporation, Tyco Fire Products LP, EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Kidde PLC Inc., Chubb Fire LTD, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc., Chemours Company FC LLC, and Chemguard Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00235-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 23, 2020). The Manuel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873 RE: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide.[BN] ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend several class action suits in New York. On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"), on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases. Since October 7, 2019, two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff. After the court selects one of the two remaining shareholders as lead plaintiff, that plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint. The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its financial condition and results of operations. The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously. Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts. ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Faces Moultrie FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC. The case is styled as Sherri Moultrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01896 (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Activate Financial, LLC, is a fully licensed, national, third-party collections agency focused on bad debt recovery and skip tracing 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 ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Court Dismisses Robertson FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted AllianceOne's motion to dismiss the case captioned SHELLY ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00749-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), without leave to amend. Prior to May 2019, the Plaintiff took out a line of consumer credit with Target, a branded retail store chain. Thereafter, her account went into arrears and was referred for collection to AllianceOne, a debt collection entity. On May 9, 2019, AllianceOne sent the Plaintiff a one-page notice. The notice stated that $238.00 was the "Minimum Amount Due" on the account. On May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Therein, she contends that the notice she received violates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), because it contains a demand for payment that overshadows or conflicts with her debt validation rights and because it is misleading and deceptive. On July 30, 2019, AllianceOne filed the pending motion to dismiss, contending that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim because: (1) the notice does not demand a payment; and (2) even if it did, that purported demand does not violate the FDCPA or the RFDCPA. On Sept. 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her opposition to the pending motion, and on Oct. 7, 2019, AllianceOne filed its reply thereto. A hearing on the motion was held on Oct. 16, 2019. Judge Drozd is satisfied that the various Ninth Circuit authorities that he has relied upon compel the conclusion that the notice at issue does not violate Section 1692g of the FDPCA. As those and other similar decisions demonstrate, in each case where a court has concluded that Section 1692g was violated, payment was demanded within a time period less than the statutory 30 days granted to dispute the debt and the demand was communicated in a format that emphasized the duty to make payment, and obscured the fact that the debtor had 30 days to dispute the debt. That is simply not the case. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. Next, the Judge finds that even if the Plaintiff's allegations with respect to the alleged Section 1692e violations had been included in her complaint, her Section 1692e claim would still fail to state a cognizable claim for relief because those allegations are not applicable to the notice that she received. Accordingly, the Judge finds that she has failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. Having already found that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege a violation of the FDCPA, it necessarily follows that the complaint also fails to allege a cognizable claim for violation of the RFDCPA. Finally, the granting of leave to amend would be futile because the only factual allegations that could support a claim to relief would be based on the notice received by the Plaintiff. The Judge has concluded that notice did not violate the FDCPA or the RFDCPA. Thus, there are no additional facts the Plaintiff could allege that could plausibly state a cognizable claim. He will therefore grant AllianceOne's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. For these reasons, Judge Drozd granted AllianceOne's motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/mzLL6C from Leagle.com. Shelly Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Thomas Martin, III -- tom@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC & Nicholas J. Bontrager -- nick@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc, Defendant, represented by Craig Joel Mariam -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP & Stephanie Lee Cobau -- scobau@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP. AMERICAN FLAGGING: Eliely Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Eliely, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Flagging & Traffic Control, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 701397/2020 (N.Y. Sup., January 27, 2020), seeks to recover all available damages, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours pay, compensation for not receiving notices and wage statements, liquidated damages, other damages including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the action pursuant to New York labor laws. American Flagging provided flagging services to its clients where Eliely worked as a flagger from August 2019 to November 27, 2019. He claims to have rendered 66-84 or more hours a week, about 11-12 hours a day or more, 6-7 days a week, all without overtime pay and an extra hour of pay for each day in which they worked a spread of hours in excess of 10 hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com AMERICAN FREEDOM: Illegal Collects Biometric Info, Ramos Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FREEDOM INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2020CH02312 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff asserts. BIPA confers on him a right to know of such risks, which are inherently presented by the collection and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will persist after termination of their employment, the Plaintiff contends. Yet, the Defendant never adequately informed Plaintiff or the Class of its biometrics collection practices, never obtained the requisite written consent from the Plaintiff regarding its biometric practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies to the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. American Freedom Insurance Company is an insurance company registered in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premium -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER A. GOTTLIEB, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20-292 (Mass. Super., Jan. 31, 2020), challenges the alleged excessive and unsupported premium increases in Amica's insurance policy. The Plaintiff brings this action, for himself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated homeowners, who are insurance policyholders of Amica for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and unfair or deceptive acts. According to the complaint, Amica refused to provide a substantive response when the Plaintiff made demand upon Amica in an effort to determine its reason for excessive increases in his homeowner's premiums. Instead, the Company parroted back language from the policy, which did not support the dramatic increase in premiums. Mr. Gottlieb resides in Burlington, Massachusetts, and owned a homeowners insurance policy issued by Amica containing endorsement form HO 05 08 05 11 Specified Additional Amount of Insurance from March 10, 2015, to March 10, 2016 (the Policy). Amica is a mutual property-casualty insurance company domiciled in Lincoln, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Petei-zavez, Esq. Noah Rosmarin, Esq. Brendan M. Bridgeland, Esq. ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C. 90 Canal Street, 1st Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617)367-1040 Facsimile: (617) 742-8280 ANDREW WILKIN: Silva Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH SILVA, and ANDREW SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDREW WILKIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00256 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated workers the federal minimum wage for hours that they worked. Ms. Silva was employed by Mr. Wilkin as an Administrative Assistant. She was an hourly employee who by agreement with her employers was entitled to an hourly wage of $16.50 per hour for hours worked at or under 40 per week and overtime compensation of $24.75 per hour for the hours she worked over 40 per week. Mr. Wilkin failed to compensate her for at least 64 hours of work she performed in June 2019, thus, violating the FLSA, according to the complaint. Mr. Smith was employed by the Defendant as a Field Service Technician. He was an hourly employee who by agreement with his employers was entitled to an hourly wage of $15.50 per hour for hours worked at or under 40 per week and overtime compensation of $23.25 per hour for the hours he worked over 40 per week. The Defendant failed to compensate for at least 68 hours of work he performed in June 2019, thus, violating the FLSA, Mr. Smith alleges. The Plaintiffs contend that there are at least 71 other individuals who, like them, were employed by Mr. Wilkin and were not paid any wages for hours that they worked during June 2019. These similarly-situated employees were all terminated by Mr. Wilkin on June 27, 2019. Mr. Wilkin is a Colorado resident, who conducted business within the State of Colorado managing, running, owning and controlling Acute Property Management, LLC, which did business as "Acute Living." On July 12, 2019, Acute Property Management, LLC filed for bankruptcy protection within the federal Bankruptcy Court in Denver, Colorado, in the case styled as In re Acute Property Management, LLC, Case No. 19-15984-EEB. The Plaintiffs say their action does not involve the debtor in that bankruptcy case or any related cases. The Plaintiffs bring their claims in this action against Mr. Wilkin individually in his role as an employer under the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Harrison, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: 303-839-1650 E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com AHarrison@sawayalaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Osby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vantish Osby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company and Security Credit Services, LLC, a Mississippi limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00725 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's debt collection actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of the FDCPA. Ms. Osby is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in the Northern District of Illinois. The Defendant attempted to collect defaulted consumer debts that she allegedly owed originally to American Credit Acceptance for a loan to purchase a car for her personal use. On Feb. 2014, Ms. Osby fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed for an American Credit Acceptance debt. Sometime after that debt went into default, it was allegedly acquired by Defendant SCS, which tried to collect upon it by having Defendant ARS send Ms. Osby a form collection letter, dated May 8, 2019. This letter asked her "resolve" the debt or face continued negative credit reporting. Ms. Osby asserts that the Defendants' form debt collection letter alarmed and upset her and confused her as to what she should do about the debt at issue. Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com - and - Ryan M. Callahan, Esq. CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC 222 West Gregory, Suite 210 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 822-4041 E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com AT&T CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Calloway FLSA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIANE CALLOWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 06975 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling. Telephone-call center employees have brought the proposed collective action against five AT&T entities: AT&T Corp.; AT&T, Inc.; AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.; AT&T Services, Inc.; and AT&T Operations, Inc. The employees allege that they were deprived of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). AT&T responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing (among other things) that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Court eventually terminated that motion without prejudice to allow for limited jurisdictional discovery. The parties are currently still in the midst of jurisdictional discovery. Pending now is the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, requesting that the statute of limitations for putative collective-action members be tolled from Dec. 19, 2018 (the filing date of the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the briefing on AT&T's motion to dismiss) going forward until the date that the Court decides the jurisdictional issue. According to the Plaintiffs, the case's allegedly unique procedural posture presents an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Specifically, they contend that AT&T's motion to dismiss, and the resultant stay on merits discovery has created significant delays in the Plaintiffs' ability to file a motion for conditional certification. In their view, it is unfair for the potential opt-in employees to be prejudiced by the delay in getting to conditional certification. Judge Chang finds that the Plaintiffs have not even had the chance to file a conditional certification motion because the parties are litigating the personal-jurisdiction dispute, which naturally has and will delay the filing of the conditional certification motion. The part of the equitable-tolling standard where the Plaintiffs' argument clearly comes up short is the requirement that the opt-ins were prevented from joining the lawsuit because of the delay in filing the conditional certification motion. No decision on conditional certification is needed to permit the filing of another lawsuit or another opt-in notice in the suit. Neither have the potential opt-ins been deprived of any information essential to deciding whether they have a claim. What is more, the delay of which the Plaintiffs complain is not totally "beyond their control." The named Plaintiffs say that the delay is all AT&T's fault. But it was the Plaintiffs who decided to file their collective action in the Northern District of Illinois in the first place. Indeed, it is worth noting that, on the diligence requirement, the relevant question will be whether the later-filing Plaintiffs were diligent in pursuing their claims. All of this depends on arguments not yet presented by the Plaintiffs who have not yet opted-in. Not surprisingly, some courts have held that any decision on equitable tolling as it applies to putative plaintiffs would amount to an advisory opinion. Based on the foregoing, Judge Chang agrees that it is not possible to decide whether equitable tolling applies to the Plaintiffs not yet in the case. The Judge denied the motion for en masse equitable tolling, but did so without prejudice to individual employees later arguing that their specific circumstances justify tolling. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/D7UFlf from Leagle.com. Diane Calloway, Doretta Wagner, Carolyn Adams-Harris, Bridgett Tift, James Bloch, Mary Hanley, Audrey Michelle Otis, China Kellam & Sharon McKenzie, Plaintiffs, represented by Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr., Glen J. Dunn & Associates & Jeffrey Grant Brown, Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C. AT&T Corp., AT&T, Inc., AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. & AT&T Operations, Inc., Defendants, represented by Karl Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Llp, Patrick Sean Coffey, Husch Blackwell LLP & Robert Matthew Romashko -- rknelson@gibsondunn.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP. AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. MCV081925 (Filed Aug. 27, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Madera to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 31, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-LJO-BAM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that AT&T adopted a time keeping program "that did not accurately reflect the start and stop time of hourly employees," resulting in unpaid overtime pursuant to the California Labor Code. AT&T is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Raymond w. Bertrand, Esq. James P. De Haan, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 458-3000 Facsimile: (858) 458-3005 E-mail: raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com AXON ENTERPRISES: Only Fraudulent Omission Claim Remains in Richey ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part Axon's motion to dismiss the case, DOUGLAS RICHEY, Plaintiff, v. AXON ENTERPRISES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00192-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.). The action stems from a dispute relating to the alleged defective design of certain models of conducted electrical weapons ("CEWs") manufactured by Axon. Axon, formerly Taser International, Inc., manufactures CEWs (also known as "Tasers"). It has developed the Pulse, X2, and X26P models of CEWs, and has previously manufactured the now discontinued C2 model of CEW. Each of Axon's CEW models are covered with an express limited warranty. The Warranty represents that the models will be free from defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one year from the date of receipt. It also provides that if the company receives a "valid warranty claim" within the warranty period, Axon will "repair or replace the product" and that Axon's sole responsibility under the warranty is to either repair or replace with the same or like product, at Axon's discretion. In 2016, Richey purchased a C2 model CEW from Axon. In October of that year, Richey fired the weapon, but it malfunctioned when the prongs ejected only one to two feet. Richey then notified Axon customer service of the issue. Axon shipped a Pulse model CEW to Richey at his home in Corte Madera, CA as a replacement for his malfunctioning model. On Jan. 18, 2017, while the safety switch on the CEW was in the "safe" position, the CEW discharged in Richey's pocket without him pulling the trigger. The barbs of the CEW stuck into Richey's jacket but, while he had to rip his jacket pocket to free the barbs, he was not personally harmed in the incident. After inspecting the device, Richey determined that the safety mechanism had become disengaged. That same day, he contacted Axon's customer service, informing them of the misfire. On Jan. 26, 2017, an Axon representative told Richey that their engineers are currently aware of the safety switch activation issue and are working on a solution. While Axon offered to send Richey two replacement barb cartridges, Axon did not repair or replace Richey's Pulse CEW. On Feb. 22, 2017, the counsel for Richey sent a letter to Axon informing it of the defective safety mechanism in the Pulse, X2 and X26P CEWs. To date, Axon has not repaired or replaced Richey's Pulse model CEW. On June 25, 2018, Richey filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 9, 2018, Richey voluntarily dismissed the California Complaint. On April 9, 2019, Richey filed the action, alleging that the Pulse, X2 and X26P models suffered from a design defect that caused the CEWs to accidentally arm and discharge. Richey asserted the following claims against Axon: violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; fraudulent omission; unjust enrichment; and violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"). On July 8, 2019, Axon moved to dismiss all of Richey's claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Axon seeks dismissal primarily on two grounds. First, Axon argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Richey lacks standing to bring his claims. Second, it argues that Richey fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Du granted in part and denied in part Defendant Axon's motion to dismiss. She granted the motion as to all but the Plaintiff's state law fraudulent omission claim. The Judge finds that while the general rule is that fraudulent omission requires "some fiduciary relationship" between the parties, the duty to disclose may arise without any confidential relationship where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff. In the case, Richey alleges that Axon's engineers were aware of the alleged defect, that Axon did not inform consumers of the defect through their user manuals or otherwise, and that consumers could not have reasonably been expected to know about the defect. These specific factual allegations adequately plead Axon's knowledge of material facts that were not accessible to Richey. Additionally, these facts support Richey's allegation that Axon intended to induce, and did induce, Richey and other consumers to purchase the allegedly defective products. Because Richey has adequately pleaded each of the elements of fraudulent omission under the heightened pleading standard, the Judge denied Axon's motion to dismiss Richey's fraudulent omission claim. Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and cases, and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Vhpg2b from Leagle.com. Douglas Richey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles A. Jones, Jones Law Firm LLC, James Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mtattorneys.com -- Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C., pro hac vice, James M. Terrell, pro hac vice, Kelly McInerney, Jones Law Firm LLC & Courtney Cooper Gipson -- cgipson@mtattorneys.com -- Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. Axon Enterprises, Inc., formerly doing business as Taser International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Douglas Blakley, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Adrienne R. Brantley-Lomeli -- abrantley@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Amy Lynn Nguyen, Axon Enterprise, Inc, pro hac vice, J. Christopher Jorgensen -- cjorgensen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Kristen L. Martini -- kmartini@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP & Pamela B. Petersen, TASER International, Inc. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Durkee Class Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Andrea F. Durkee, on Behalf of Herself All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Does 1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00347-W-LL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte, North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong, and Toronto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Submit Claims in GSE Bond Suit Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 19-cv-1704 (JSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York extended (i) the opt-out and objection deadline for class members who did not receive a Notice Packet to Feb. 14, 2020; and (ii) the deadline for all class members to submit their claims to Feb. 28, 2020. The Court has received letters from three potential class members in the case regarding the Plaintiffs' settlements with Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., First Tennessee Bank, N.A. and FTN Financial Securities Corp., and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel to respond in writing to the letters, which raised assorted concerns about the settlement process. It is satisfied with the response of the Plaintiffs' counsel, attached as Exhibit A to the Order. However, in order to address concerns that one of these potential class members raised about the timing of the mailing notice, Judge Rakoff extended the opt-out and objection deadline to Feb. 14, 2020 for the class members who did not receive a Notice Packet before the original Jan. 16, 2020 opt-out and objection deadline. Further, he extended the deadline for all the class members to submit their claims to Feb. 28, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/FWhjeY from Leagle.com. City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Plaintiff, represented by Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg P.C., Amanda F. Lawrence - ALAWRENCE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott&Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Christian Levis - clevis@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg P.C., George A. Zelcs - gzelcs@koreintillery.com - Korein Tillery, LLC, Joseph Peter Guglielmo - JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT- SCOTT.COM - Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Justin W. Batten - JBATTEN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Kristen M. Anderson - KANDERSON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP, Margaret Ciavarella MacLean - mmaclean@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg P.C., Randall P. Ewing, Jr. - rewing@koreintillery.com - Korein Tillery, LLC, Roland Raymond St. -rstlouis@lowey.com - Louis, III , Lowey Dannenberg P.C. Bank of America, N.A. & Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Defendants, represented by John E. Schmidtlein - jschmidtlein@wc.com - Williams & Connelly L.L.P., pro hac vice, Beth A. Stewart - bstewart@wc.com - Beth Stewart Esq, Jesse T. Smallwood - jsmallwood@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP, Jonathan Bradley Pitt - jpitt@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP, Lauren Anna Howard - lhoward@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP & William Jefferson Vigen - wvigen@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP. Barclays Bank PLC & Barclays Capital Inc., Defendants, represented by Lawrence Edward Buterman - lawrence.buterman@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova - lilia.vazova@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP, Richard David Owens - richard.owens@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP, Adam Brian Shamah - adam.shamah@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP, Eric Lewis Taffet , Latham & Watkins, LLP, 885 3rd Ave New York, NY, 10022-4834 & Gregory Stephen Mortenson - gregory.mortenson@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP. BECTON DICKINSON: 14,330 Hernia Product Claims Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending approximately 14,330 product liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia repair devices as of December 31, 2019. The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. Trials are scheduled throughout 2020 in various state and/or federal courts. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: 2,650 Filter Product Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company is defending approximately 2,650 product liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior vena cava filters as of December 31, 2019. The majority of those claims are currently pending in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being, remanded to various federal jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above, remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials are scheduled throughout 2020. As of December 31, 2019, the Company entered into settlement agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for approximately 6,400 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. In most product liability litigation, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters. In connection with the settlement of a prior litigation with certain of the Company's insurance carriers, an agreement with the Company's insurance carriers was reached to reimburse the Company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 750 Women's Health Product Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company is defending approximately 750 product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic mesh devices as of December 31, 2019. The majority of those claims are currently pending in various federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 1,010 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the Company is actually at issue. The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with Medtronic. In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has paid Medtronic $141 million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims." The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,165 of the Women's Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2020 in state and federal courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict. The Company expects additional trials of Women’s Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially include consolidated trials. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. In April 2019, two purported class action complaints, one captioned McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., and the other captioned Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., were filed against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders. The complaints were consolidated in July 2019 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania under the caption In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the McComas complaint, as subsequently amended, as the operative pleading. Both complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims under Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants. The plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares issued in the IPO. The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus was misleading because it allegedly failed to disclose that a portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or represented undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result, BrightView would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin or non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect earnings. On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as legally insufficient. Defendants also filed a petition for dismissal based on the provision in BrightView's certificate of incorporation that designates the federal district courts of the United States of America as the exclusive forum for resolving any claim arising under the United States federal securities laws, or to stay the action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg. In that case, the Delaware Supreme Court is expected to decide whether federal forum selection provisions such as the one in BrightView's certificate of incorporation are enforceable under Delaware law. On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled defendants' preliminary objections and denied defendants' petition for dismissal or for a stay. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed answers to the complaint, and discovery in the case is now ongoing. Brightview said "The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against the actions. The Company is unable at this time to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a result of these matters." Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services, ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care and landscape development. It operates through an integrated national service prototype, which systematically delivers services at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending against the Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Litigation. In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including the company were added as defendants in a civil multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple individual and class action lawsuits filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail pharmacies. The plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and informed manufacturers that they wished to maintain current customer allocations for the purpose of avoiding price erosion. Cardinal Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund. In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. Cardinal said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CDI CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vasquez Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan C. Vasquez, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. CDI CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01044-PD (E.D. Pa., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other employees to whom the Defendant paid straight-time-for-overtime. The Defendant does not pay its hourly employees overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead, he says, the Defendant pays its hourly employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's straight-time-for-overtime pay plan violates the FLSA because hourly employees are owed overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one half times their regular rates, says the complaint. Plaintiff Vasquez worked for CDI as a Field Engineer. CDI provides integrated engineering, design, architecture, and project support services to the energy, chemicals, and infrastructure markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 123 S. 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-568-3500 Facsimile: 215-578-3501 Email: tsweeney@messalaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Michael K. Burke, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Photographs ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00111-RDA-MSN (E.D. Va., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's unauthorized use of the proposed class members' photographs for purposes of trade, in violation of the Virginia Code and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has unlawfully obtained the photographs of class members without their consent and used the photographs for a facial recognition program for purposes of trade, i.e., to make a profit. Clearview is a for-profit company that has "scraped" billions of photographs of individuals without their consent from the Internet and loaded them into a database in order to use facial recognition technology to compare photographs of unknown individuals against its database of stolen photographs of known individuals. "Scraping" is the process of extracting large amounts of information from a Web site. This may be accomplished by downloading individual Web pages or an entire site. The downloaded content may include the text from the pages, the full Hypertext Markup Language (commonly referred to as "HTML," which is a standardized system for coding text files to achieve font, color, graphic, and/or hyperlink effects), or both the HTML and images from each Web page. The acquisition of the photographs violated the terms of service of the targeted Internet sites, the Plaintiff contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. Aaron S. Book, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 300 N. Washington St., Suite 404 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com abook@websterbook.com COBALT COMMERCIAL: Ruiz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ YANITZA V. RUIZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. COBALT COMMERCIAL SERVICES, LLC and MARCOS BECARI, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-20462-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2020), seeks to recover money damages for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a busser and cleaning employee from April 1, 2019, through Nov. 23, 2019. The Plaintiff was sent to work to The Lincoln Eatery Food Hall, which is an indoor court featuring multiple food vendors, such as cafeterias, restaurants, and bars sharing common self-serve dinner areas, entertainment, and sanitary installations. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay her a minimum of 67.5 overtime hours, which represents a value of $1,220.25. She adds that she did not clock in and out, but she wrote a timecard, and the Defendants were able to keep track of the hours she and other similarly situated employees worked. Cobalt Commercial is a company providing maintenance and cleaning services to commercial accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COLLECTO INC: Oh Sues in New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The case is styled as Seung Eun Oh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Collecto, Inc. doing business as: EOS CCA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01937 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, operates as a debt management and recovery resource company.[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 CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Richardson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC, removed the case captioned as JOSEPH RICHARDSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case BCV-19-103468 (Filed Dec. 11, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 31, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00171-LJO-JLT to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and failure to pay wages timely upon termination. Conduent is an American technology-led business process services company.[BN] Defendant Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC, is represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. Nicole s. Adler, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 906-4245 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com nsa@kullmanlaw.com CULLIGAN INT'L: Kapp Suit Moved From Illinois to E.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aaron Kapp, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Culligan International Company, Eastern Wisconsin Water Conditioning Co., Culligan Soft Water Service, Unco Data Systems Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00355, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 21, 2020. The Wisconsin District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00286-JPS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions. Culligan Water is an American water treatment company headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. Culligan Water specializes in water softeners, water filtration systems and bottled water for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Mara A. Baltabols, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC 134 N LaSallle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com david@classlawyers.com mara@classlawyers.com tod@classlawyers.com - and - Adam E. Urbanczyk, Esq. Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1570 Oak Ave. Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 787-2717 - and - Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1 N LaSalle, Suite 2255 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 787-2717 Fax: (888) 574-9038 The Defendants are represented by: John Sheldon Letchinger, Esq. Matthew J. Caccamo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 191 N Wacker Dr., Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 416-6206 mcaccamo@bakerlaw.com - and - John P. Ryan, Esq. Brandon S. Stein, Esq. David M. Schultz, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 N Franklin St., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-3000 Fax: (312) 704-3001 Email: jryan@hinshawlaw.com bstein@hinshawlaw.com dschultz@hinshawlaw.com DACOTAH BANK: Schultes Sues in North Dakota Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dacotah Bank. The case is styled as Stacey Schultes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dacotah Bank, Case No. 3:20-cv-00028-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., Feb. 21, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Dacotah Bank provides banking, insurance, mortgage, and trust and wealth management services to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Montgomery, Esq. MONTGOMERY & PENDER, P.C. 5630 34th Avenue So., Suite 120 Fargo, ND 58104 Phone: (701) 281-8001 Email: mike@bullislaw.com DARTMOUTH CLUBS: Truehart Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Truehart, an individual; Briggette Munnis, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARTMOUTH CLUBS, INC. dba KING'S INN PREMIER GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Massachusetts Corporation; CRAIG J. CABRAL, an individual; CREEP DOE MANAGER, an individual; PAULIE DOE MANAGER, an individual; KIMBERLY DOE MANAGER, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 4-6; and DOES 7-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-10374-DJC (D. Mass., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees." The Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com john@kristensenlaw.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Schwartz Sues Over Defective DevaCurl Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Schwartz and Mia Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, Case No. 1:20-cv-01657 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices of the Defendant in marketing and selling its hair care products, including the DevaCurl Products. In response to the growing trend of moving toward sulfate-free shampoo and away from sulfate shampoos, as sulfates can potentially cause damage to hair, in 2002, the Defendant created an innovative new haircare category with the launch of No-Poo Original, according to the complaint. Many consumers, including the Plaintiffs have used the No-Poo Product as a complete shampoo replacement once or twice a week to cleanse hair rather than using traditional shampoo. Therefore, the Plaintiffs aver, consumers seeking a complete alternative to traditional shampoo end up purchasing the No-Poo Product. Despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused many curly haired consumers across the United States to purchase and use the Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation, excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during normal use by consumers, the Plaintiffs allege. Indeed, thousands of consumers have reported their hair failing out shortly after or during actual use of the Products. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of the Products. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant conceals and fails to disclose the defective nature of its Products by actively misleading consumers into believing that the hair loss and shedding caused by the Products is "normal" and "common," that even excessive shedding of over 100 strands of hair per day is "common," and that shedding is not preventable. They insist that the Defendant unquestionably has knowledge and notice of the hair loss and scalp irritation caused by the Products. Despite notice and knowledge of the problems caused by the Products, the Defendant has not recalled the Products, has not provided any warnings of the known risks, has denied that the Products cause the reported health issues, and has not offered its customers any compensation for their damages, the Plaintiffs note. Had they and other Class members known that the Defendant's Products would cause hair loss, scalp irritation and other problems, they would not have purchased the Products, the Plaintiffs add. The Plaintiffs purchased and used numerous DevaCurl Products. The Defendant manufactures hair care products. The Company produces and markets a range of products for cleaning, conditioning, and styling curly hair.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: 845-356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Melissa Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street, Suite 500 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: 212-490-2022 Email: memert@ssbny.com DEVACURL: Women File Class Action for Hair Fall, Flaky Scalps ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie McNeal, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that former devotees of the haircare brand DevaCurl said they have dealt with hair falling out, itchy and flaky scalps, and loss of curls using its products in recent months. Now, the company has said it's investigating and testing the products but still insists they're safe to use. The allegations against the Instagram-famous haircare brand have spread across the internet in recent weeks. A Facebook group started by Stephanie Mero, a hairstylist in Florida who has been speaking out against the company since August 2019, has grown to nearly 30,000 members. Many women in the group said their curls became lifeless, misshapen, and dry after using DevaCurl. They shared photos showing bald spots and flaky scalps they attributed to the use of the brand's products. In an apparent response to the allegations, DevaCurl released a statement saying it had done testing and found "no safety issues with our products." "We don't speculate on why some people are attributing the challenges with their curls to our products," the company said. A spokesperson told BuzzFeed News DevaCurl is "conducting additional testing with an independent party." "All of our formulas are subject to rigorous and thorough testing to ensure our products meet strict internal quality assurance standards and regulatory requirements before they reach the market," the spokesperson said. Some of the women said they only realized what was happening to their hair after watching a video by Ayesha Malik, who runs a YouTube channel about curly hair tips and tricks. After months of issues, Malik made a video called "Why I Stopped Using DevaCurl." The video has since been viewed more than 1 million times. Malik told BuzzFeed News she had been a hardcore devotee of DevaCurl since 2013. Even though the products were expensive, Malik said by 2014 she was totally sold on the benefits. She said she thought that it was "the best hair line out there and I'm going to use this the rest of my life." Malik also told her followers how much she loved DevaCurl and said by 2017 she had the best hair of her life. But in 2018, she started to notice a change in her hair. According to Malik, her hair began falling out, and her scalp became itchy and flaky. Her curls turned into waves. In early 2019, she gave her sister some of the products. Soon, her sister was complaining about an itchy scalp too. Still, it took Malik until last fall to seriously consider if DevaCurl could be the problem. "I was so blinded by my love for DevaCurl . . . I felt like I was in a cult," she said. She decided to speak out and make the video to help other curly-haired women who also may be experiencing issues. When Nelkis Torres from Orlando saw Malik's video, she could immediately relate. Torres had thought she was having hormonal issues and even got blood work done because her hair kept falling out. "I remember crying every time not wanting to wash my hair because I knew how much hair I would lose," she wrote in the Facebook support group. When she saw the video and read more and more stories, Torres told BuzzFeed News she realized "DevaCurl was the problem." Torres had been using DevaCurl since 2016 and quit after seeing the video. She described her hair as "dry and frizzy" and said she had to keep cutting it because of the hair loss. "I'm blessed that my curls are still here, unlike other girls, but my hair is still damaged," she said. One of those women whose curls lost their shape is Annie Vail, a student at Cornell University. She told BuzzFeed News she had been using DevaCurl for the past four years, but she started having issues with it about a year ago. "My hair [started] coming off in giant clumps in the shower, and my curls drastically lost their definition," she said. "I have also struggled with dandruff, an issue I never had a problem with until I started to use DevaCurl." She added: "I was spending money to color my hair, and then it would all go to waste because DevaCurl caused my hair to fall out in giant clumps." Vail said she initially "dismissed the possibility" DevaCurl could be the cause of her problems because it had such a good reputation online. But recently, she went on vacation and didn't bring her DevaCurl products with her. She said she noticed an immediate difference and stopped using DevaCurl. "Since switching, my hair no longer has been falling out, and my curls have slowly been coming back," she said. The women who spoke to BuzzFeed News said they are now completely dumping their DevaCurl in hopes of restoring their hair to its former glory. Torianne Smith of Ottawa said she invested in an entire DevaCurl routine after switching over to using its products in 2018. "My hair started falling out and breaking, so I cut it very short to try to prevent it," she said, adding she now has bald spots. Like Torres, Smith said she was so concerned about her hair loss that she visited a doctor and tried supplements and vitamins to help. For many curly-haired women, the damage to their hair is about more than just appearances, as Karen Collis told BuzzFeed News. "The loss of curls is the worst part, as that is part of my identity," she said. Collis said she experienced hair and curl loss as well as scabbing on her scalp from the products. The online complaints against DevaCurl also drew the attention of attorneys interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the company. Two attorneys, Gary Klinger, Esq. -- gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- of Kozonis & Klinger and Gary Mason, Esq. -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, are currently seeking plaintiffs for a possible lawsuit. The spokesperson for DevaCurl told BuzzFeed News that there "has been no lawsuit filed against DevaCurl concerning our products or their safety." They said DevaCurl is committed to hearing its customers' concerns. "We are committed to providing our customers with all the information they need to continue to use DevaCurl with confidence," they said. "We'll be posting updates on our website, and we encourage our consumers to share their experiences with us at customercare@devacurl.com. We will go above and beyond to help anyone on their curl journey." Malik said she is struggling with feeling guilty about recommending DevaCurl to so many people. She said she is speaking out not because she wants revenge or has animosity toward the company, but because she wants to help other women. "Nothing can happen to get me my hair back," she said. "There's nothing that DevaCurl or anyone can do to get me what I once had." [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement to End Court Oversight of DYRS --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Hamilton, writing for The DC Post, reports that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced an agreement in a class action lawsuit that is likely to end court oversight and monitoring of the D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, if approved. The court control over the department has been in place for 35 years as a result of a court ruling. Now the District and Plaintiffs' counsel have reached a settlement to put an end to the practice. The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 1985 on behalf of youth in the District's secure juvenile detention facilities, which rehabilitates minors who commit crimes. However, the D.C. Superior Court has to approve the settlement in order for it to go into effect. "The settlement agreement is a tremendous victory for our local autonomy and demonstrates the progress we have made to improve and strengthen the District's juvenile justice system," Bowser was quoted as saying in a statement from the Office of the Mayor. "I am confident that DYRS, under the leadership of Director Lacey, will continue to lead the way in engaging vulnerable District youth with evidence-based practices." The District has put so much effort to strengthen its juvenile justice system since the lawsuit was filed, according to the statement. As part those efforts, it founded the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) as a Cabinet-level agency, closed Oak Hill and opened modern facilities, improved the provision of a wide range of rehabilitative services in its secure facilities and increased the safety of the facilities through evidence-based behavioral management practices. In 2015, the D.C. Superior Court approved a partial class action settlement in the lawsuit, limiting court oversight of the city's youth rehabilitation services. Bowser's office attributes the development to the progress made by the District. The new agreement will finish the oversight and allow the agency to operate independently. "This settlement is possible because DYRS worked hard to transform the way it supervises and provides services to court-involved youth," said Attorney General Karl Racine. "Once finalized, this agreement will ensure that we enhance public safety by meeting the rehabilitative needs of our young people. We are thankful to DYRS Director Lacey's strong leadership in service to the District of Columbia, and for the significant contributions of our community partners, Special Arbiter Grace Lopes, the Plaintiffs' counsel, and OAG attorneys who helped resolve this case," Racine continued. DYRS Director Clinton Lacey also celebrated the decision, saying "This settlement demonstrates how far the District has come in serving court-involved youth. Led by our vision, hope, resiliency and empowerment of youth and families, and grounded in the core principles of restorative justice, DYRS will continue provide the highest quality of services to the youth in our care." [GN] DKJJ DELI: Nunez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Soto Nunez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DKJJ DELI FOOD CORP. (D/B/A DKJJ DELI FOOD) and AMADO GUZMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01634 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the Defendants' deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli located in Bronx, New York, under the name "DKJJ Deli Food."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DRAEGER'S SUPER: Faces Thompson Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draeger's Super Markets. The case is captioned as JASMINE T. THOMPSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DRAEGER'S SUPER MARKETS, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY and DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20582671 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 4, 2020). A case management conference is set for July 8, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. Draeger's operates stores. The Company offers meat, wines, delicatessen, bakery products, housewares, bridal products, and gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin E. Sullivan, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 S Beverly Dr., Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DREAMCLOUD BRAND LLC, d/b/a RESIDENT HOME, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01401 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as an "independent contractor" rather than as its employee. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff by the hour, but failed to pay the overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week as is required by the federal FLSA. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Customer Service Representative. DREAMCLOUD, d/b/a Resident Home, is an online retail business that sells mattresses and home goods to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Kaufmann, Esq. Afroz Baig, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 Email: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com abaig@leonardcarder.com DSV AIR & SEA: Suren Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniela Suren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DSV AIR & SEA, INC., Case No. 2020CH02310 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 25, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff alleges. BIPA confers on the Plaintiff a right to know of such risks, which are inherently presented by the collection and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will persist after termination of their employment. Yet, the Defendant never adequately informed the Plaintiff or the Class of its biometrics collection practices, never obtained the requisite written consent from the Plaintiff regarding its biometric practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies to the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. DSV Air and Sea, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and doing business in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com EF EDUCATION: Sensibaugh Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON SENSIBAUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EF EDUCATION FIRST, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01068 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending automated text message advertisements to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to the Plaintiff and all other putative Class members in an automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software that received and stored telephone numbers and then automatically dialed such numbers. Neither the Plaintiff, nor any other member of the putative Class, provided their prior "express written consent" to the Defendant or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of the Defendant to transmit the subject text message advertisements to the 1529 Number or to any other Class member's cellular telephone number by means of an "automatic telephone dialing system." EF Education is an international education company that specializes in language training, educational travel, academic degree programs, and cultural exchange. Founded in Sweden in 1965, today EF has approximately 52,000 employees in 116 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thibodeaux Suit Over FCRA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Synchrony Bank, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00271-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, Equifax prepared and issued credit reports concerning the Plaintiff that included inaccurate information regarding a Synchrony Bank debt. The inaccurate information furnished by Defendant Synchrony Bank and published by Defendant Equifax is inaccurate since the Synchrony Bank debt was being reported with a balance, despite the fact that Synchrony Bank previously discharged this debt, and provided the Plaintiff with a 1099 as proof of the discharged debt. Further, the 1099 required the Plaintiff to report this discharged debt as income. The Plaintiff notified Equifax that he disputed the accuracy of the information Equifax was reporting on or around March 4, 2019. The Plaintiff specifically stated in a letter that he was disputing the balance on the account and provided a copy of the 1099 from Synchrony Bank as proof of the discharge of this debt. Despite the dispute by the Plaintiff that the information on his consumer report was inaccurate with respect to the disputed Synchrony account, Equifax did not evaluate or consider any of the information, claims, or evidence of the Plaintiff and did not make an attempt to substantially reasonably verify that the derogatory information concerning the disputed account was inaccurate, says the complaint. Equifax is a consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Matthews Files Suit in District of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc. The case is styled as Carla Matthews, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10379-DJC (D. Mass., Feb. 24, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. Evenflo Company, Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and principally engages in the design, research and development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer branded juvenile products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Rose MacAuley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Email: jessicam@hbsslaw.com FACILITIES EXPERTS: Stoneman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY STONEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FACILITIES EXPERTS, LLC D/B/A URBAN GREENHOUSE, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00221-DJH (D. Ariz., Jan. 30, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that to solicit new customers, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. He adds that the Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be placed to his and Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them injuries. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. The Defendant is a cannabis store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. HAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lee Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Collection Service, Inc. The case is styled as Natia M. Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01268 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Franklin Collection Service is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq. Eric Donald Coleman, Esq. Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8151 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com thatz@sulaimanlaw.com nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com G & A RESTAURANT: Whitehurst Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- CANDIE WHITEHURST, individually and on behalf of herself and others similiarly situated v. G & A RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a GYARMATHY & ASSOCIATES, A Florida Profit Corporation; JAMES GYARMATHY, individually; and RON PHILLIPS, individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-00067-TPB-MRM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the class members are/were all non-exempt employees subjected to the Defendants' pay scheme whereby they purportedly paid the workers pursuant to the fluctuating work week method, but where the salary was not fixed each week regardless of the number of hours that the workers worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to compensate her, and those similarly situated, a time-and-a-half overtime premium for their hours worked over 40 in workweeks throughout the relevant time period. G&A owns and operates 13 KFC franchises in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3039 E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com amurthy@forthepeople.com GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------ The case is captioned as Beulah Prewitt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gerber Life Insurance Company, Case No. 20-CI-11, was removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court, Laurel County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (London) on Feb. 3, 2020. The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-00027-REW-HAI to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert E. Wier. The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract-related laws Gerber Life was formed in 1967 in Fremont, Michigan. Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and medium-sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 636-4333 Facsimile: (502) 636-4342 E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com gerards@bsjfirm.com Defendant Gerber Life Insurance Company is represented by: Eric Wade Richardson, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 301 E. Fourth Street 3500 Great American Tower Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4019 Facsimile: (513) 852-7885 E-mail: ewrichardson@vorys.com GILEAD SCIENCES: MSP Antitrust Suit Moved From Florida to Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-20170 (Filed Jan. 15, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 31, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00737-JSC to the proceeding. The case s assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The lawsuit alleges violation of antitrust-related laws. According to the complaint, Gilead and its co-conspirators have engaged in a long-running scheme to suppress competition with respect to drugs used to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection--a disease which, if left untreated, destroys the immune system, leading to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and eventual death. Through an array of anticompetitive practices, including horizontal agreements constituting per se violations of the antitrust laws, Gilead acquired and maintained a monopoly for drugs that comprise the modern HIV treatment regimen known as "combination antiretroviral therapy." The scheme enabled Gilead and its co-conspirators to unlawfully extend patent protection for their drugs, impair entry by generic competitors, and charge exorbitant, supra-competitive prices for the drugs that people living with HIV need to survive, says the complaint. MSP contends that its assignors and the Class have been injured, and unless the Defendants' unlawful conduct is enjoined, will continue to be injured, in their business and property as a result of the Defendants' continuing conspiracy that violates the Sherman Act. The Defendants include GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., a Delaware for-profit corporation; GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC, an unlimited liability company organized under the laws of Ireland; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, a Delaware for-profit corporation; E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, LLC, a Delaware for-profit corporation; JAPAN TOBACCO, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of Japan; JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., a California for-profit corporation; AKROS PHARMA, INC., a New York for-profit corporation; JANSSEN R&D IRELAND, a private unlimited company organized under the laws of Ireland; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., a New Jersey for-profit corporation. Gilead Sciences is an American biotechnology company that researches, develops and commercializes drugs. The Company focuses primarily on antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and influenza, including Harvoni and Sovaldi. Bristol-Myers is an American pharmaceutical company, headquartered in New York City. Bristol-Myers manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics in several therapeutic. Japan Tobacco is a cigarette manufacturing company and is part of the Nikkei 225 index.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Charles Edward Whorton, Esq. David Lee DaPonte, Esq. Jorge Alejandro Mestre, Esq. Andres Rivero, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com ddaponte@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com arivero@riveromestre.com The Defendants are are represented by: Jason Nelson Zakia, Esq. Moneyede Martin, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2352 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 Facsimile: (305) 358-5744 E-mail: jzakia@whitecase.com mmartin@whitecase.com - and - Jason A. Ross, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5425 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: jason.ross@arnoldporter.com - and - Jerome Wayne Hoffman, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-2000 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872 E-mail: jerome.hoffman@hklaw.com GLA COLLECTION: Adair Sues in M.D. Alabama Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.L.A. Collection Company, Inc. The case is styled as Marcus Adair, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.L.A. Collection Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00125-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala., Feb. 24, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GLA Collection Company Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford Wayne Botes, Esq. BOND BOTES REESE & SHINN PC 15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140 Birmingham, AL 35244 Phone: (205) 802-2200 Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com HABIT RESTAURANTS: Stein Securities Suit Challenges Yum! Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, INC., RUSSELL WILLIAM BENDEL, IRA FILS, JOSEPH J. KADOW, ALLAN W. KARP, KARIN TIMPONE, A. WILLIAM ALLEN III, CHRISTOPHER K. REILLY and IRA ZECHER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01763 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public holders of the common stock of Habit against the Company and the members of its board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Habit and Yum! Brands, Inc. On January 5, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Habit Class A stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). On February 4, 2020, in order to convince Habit shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges. On February 19, 2020, the Company filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy Statement that did not correct the materially incomplete and misleading nature of the preliminary proxy, the Plaintiff says. The Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's shareholders on March 18, 2020. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading, the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Habit's financial advisor, Piper Sandler & Co., in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff, who is a holder of Habit common stock, seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the omitted material information is disclosed to Habit shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. Habit is a burger-centric, fast casual restaurant that specializes in preparing fresh, made-to-order char-grilled burgers and sandwiches featuring USDA choice tri-tip steak, grilled chicken and sushi-grade tuna cooked over an open flame.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com HILLSBOROUGH TITLE: Faces Urban Suit Over Illegal Closing Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT URBAN and PATRICIA URBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HILLSBOROUGH TITLE, INC., Case No. 102563969 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from closing fees improperly charged and collected by the Defendant from buyers of real estate transactions throughout the State of Florida. The case seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and/or damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On June 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract with the owner of certain real estate located in Hillsborough, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay cash for the Seller's Property. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly charged and collected closing fees from buyers of real estate in Florida. The Defendant, a licensed title agency, is a Florida company licensed and registered to do business in Florida, having offices located throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: 954-889-3359 Facsimile: 954-889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Richard B. Feinberg, Esq. FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313 Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: 727 231-6400 E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com HUDSON HALL: Stewart Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK STEWART, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. HUDSON HALL LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, HUDSON HALL HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, THINK FOOD GROUP, LLC, and JOSE RAMON ANDRES PUERTA a/k/a JOSE ANDRES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00885 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages for off-the-clock work, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a cook in March 2019. The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the trade name "MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN" at Hudson Yards, in 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 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 JOSIE MARAN: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Josie Maran Cosmetics, LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Josie Maran Cosmetics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01582 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Josie Maran Cosmetics offers organic argan oil-infused, eco-friendly skin care and cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com KELLY SERVICES: Stanley FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Marie Stanley, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES, INC.; CENTENE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. CGC-20-582242, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 24, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01376 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege a single claim for relief against both the Defendants under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. John W. Drury, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-460-5000 Facsimile: 312-460-7000 Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com jdrury@seyfarth.com - and - Eric Suits, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 498-7032 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: esuits@seyfarth.com - and - Janeth H. Leader, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.433.1940 Fax: 415.399.8490 Email: jleader@littler.com KEMET CORP: Settlement in Capacitors' Suit Awaits Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement made in the class action suit entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, is awaiting court approval. KEMET and KEMET Electronics Corporation (KEC), along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries (including TOKIN), are defendants in a purported antitrust class action complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the "U.S. Class Action Complaint"). The complaint alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money damages. On November 8, 2019 KEMET and KEC entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the U.S. Class Action Complaint by which, in consideration for the release of KEMET, KEC, and their affiliates from all claims relating in any way to the conduct alleged in the U.S. Class Action Complaint and from claims which could have been asserted in the U.S. Class Action Complaint to the extent they relate to the sale of capacitors in the United States, KEMET agreed to pay an aggregate of $62.0 million to the settlement class of plaintiffs. The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, KEMET paid $10.0 million into an escrow account on December 6, 2019. The remaining amount will be paid by KEMET within 12 months of the date of the Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement KEMET and KEC did not admit to any violation of any statute or law or any liability or wrongdoing. KEMET Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. L BRANDS: Faces Velazquez FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report --------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA VELAZQUEZ, CHRYSTAL FREGOSO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v. L BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV362674 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 3, 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 Plaintiffs seek statutory damages due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA. L Brands is an American fashion retailer based in Columbus, Ohio. L Brands' flagship brands include Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works. L Brands posted $12.63 billion in revenue in 2017, and was listed as 231 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of largest United States companies by revenue.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beveriy Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw. com william@setarehlaw. com alex@setarehlaw. com - and - Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com - and - David DeRubertis, Esq. THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Studio City, CA 91604 E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com LANNETT CO: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement in Pa. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting the court's final approval of the settlement in the class action suit pending before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by making false and misleading statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP Distribution Agreement. In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court. In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2020. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend E.D. Pennsylvania Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company remains a defendant in a class action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by including in the Company's securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint. Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time." Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LEGACY INSURANCE: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY NAIMAN, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated v. BENJAMIN FRUTCHEY; and LEGACY INSURANCE SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00257-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making phone calls to cellular telephones using an automated telephone dialing system, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that she has not consented to the receipt of any calls from the Defendants and she has not provided her cell phone number to the Defendants. By calling her, the Defendants caused her and the putative class members actual harm, including the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, consumption of electricity in cost per-kilowatt required to recharge the cell phones, consumption of money or purchased blocks of calls, and wear and tear on telephone equipment. The calls took time to receive and her statutory right of privacy was invaded, she added. Ms. Naiman is an individual, who resides in Maricopa County, Arizona. Benjamin Frutchey is an insurance producer located at 10401 Venice Blvd., Suite 201, in Los Angeles, California. Frutchey is employed by Legacy Insurance Solutions LLC, which operates a call center, where automated equipment is used to place large numbers of telemarketing calls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Veronika Fabian, Esq. CHOI & FABIAN, PLC 90 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 5 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 517-1400 Facsimile: (480) 517-6955 E-mail: Veronika@choiandfabian.com LOUISIANA: Expropriation Damages Award in Crooks Reversed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVE CROOKS AND ERA LEA CROOKS, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Case No. 2019-C-00160 (La.), Judge Michael E. Kirby of the Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed in part the court of appeal-judgment insofar as it upheld the expropriation damages award to the Lake Plaintiffs and to the Swamp Plaintiffs. In 1962, the United States began constructing various structures in and around the Catahoula Basin pursuant to a congressionally-approved navigation project under the River and Harbor Act of 1960 to promote navigation on the Ouachita and Black Rivers. In conjunction with that project, the State of Louisiana signed an "Act of Assurances," which obligated the State to provide the federal government with all lands and property interests necessary to the project free of charge, and to indemnify the federal government from any damages resulting from the project. The project was completed in 1973 and, at that time, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the water levels in and around the Catahoula Basin. As intended, these water management activities increased water levels in the Catahoula Basin and prolonged the natural annual high-water fluctuations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to manage the water levels in the Catahoula Basin to this day. Also, the State, through the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, has granted mineral leases in the area known as Catahoula Lake. On May 4, 2006, Plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks filed a "Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For Declaration Judgment." The Crookses alleged that they represent a class of landowners in the Catahoula Basin whose property is affected by the increased water levels from the project. Ultimately, the trial court certified the Plaintiffs as one class, but subdivided that class into two groups -- the "Lake Plaintiffs" and the "Swamp Plaintiffs" -- depending on the location of the properties affected. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring that the body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a permanent river that seasonally overflowed and covered its banks; the riparian landowners, i.e., the Lake Plaintiffs, are the owners of these river banks; and the State is liable for the inverse condemnation of these lands because of the significant obstruction of the natural servitude of drainage. Relevant to the issue before the Court, the trial court denied the State's exception of prescription, finding the Cooper v. Louisiana Department of Public Works case to be on point and controlling. The trial court found that the two-year prescriptive period of La. R.S. 9:5624 does not apply because the statute addresses a situation in which private property is damaged for public purposes, and the case at hand involves claims for inverse condemnation, i.e., an appropriation (taking) without the institution of formal judicial proceedings. It court also found that the three-year prescriptive period for takings found in La. R.S. 13:5111 does not apply, because the United States, not the State, effected the taking. The trial court then determined the prescriptive period applicable to the case is the one-year prescriptive period for damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493. In deciding the peremptory exception of no right of action, the trial court found that the United States is the party that inversely condemned the Plaintiffs' lands. Referring to the language of the "Act of Assurances," it concluded the State undertook the obligation of acquiring all lands, easements, and rights of way, including flowage rights in overflow areas necessary for the project, and agreed to "hold and save the United States free from damages" due to the same. Again, the trial court relied on Cooper to support its conclusion. The trial court, citing Cooper, found that any interference with the natural servitude of drainage constitutes a taking or damage that entitles a landowner to compensation for inverse condemnation. Based on its findings, the trial court awarded expropriation damages of $28,745,438.40 to the Lake Plaintiffs and $9,550,800 to the Swamp Plaintiffs, as owners of the overflow lands. The trial court also awarded the Lake Plaintiffs $4,694,309.68 for oil and gas royalties attributable to mineral production from the riparian lands from May 2003 to trial. The Court granted the State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources' writ application and ordered briefing and argument limited to the issue of whether the lower courts erred in failing to find that the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims have prescribed under either or both La. R.S. 13:511 or 28 U.S.C. Section 2501. After the Court granted the writ, but prior to oral argument, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2163, the State filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing for the first time that if the Court finds the Act of Assurances constitutes a stipulation pour autrui, giving the Plaintiffs an inverse condemnation cause of action against the State, then the Plaintiffs' action to enforce the stipulation in their favor is subject to prescription of ten years under La. C.C. art. 3499. The State also filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action asserting the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the State for mineral royalties, and asks the Court to vacate the award of $4,694,309.68, which represents the oil and gas royalties attributable to the mineral production from the riparian lands between May 2003 and the date of trial. Having reviewed the evidence in the record, Judge Kirby finds no manifest error with regard to the following factual findings by the trial court: the body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a permanent river that seasonally overflowed and covered its banks; the riparian landowners, i.e., the Lake Plaintiffs, own of the land between the ordinary low and ordinary high water mark of the river's bank; and the man-made structures installed in and around the Catahoula Basin caused significant flooding of both the riparian and overflow lands, which obstructed the natural servitude of drainage of the area. The facts in Cooper are, in all material respects, identical to the facts in the present case. Nonetheless, Judge Kirby agrees with dissenting Judge Amy that the majority in Cooper erred by applying tort doctrine to an appropriation claim. In doing so, the Cooper majority ignored the court's own longstanding precedent that the taking of property, by flooding or otherwise, without proper exercise of eminent domain, is not a tort but is considered an appropriation. Furthermore, he agrees with Judge Amy that the majority in Cooper erred in determining the United States, and not the State, appropriated the Plaintiffs' property. Having found that the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims against the State for compensation have prescribed, the Judge expresses no opinion as to the applicability of 28 U.S.C. Section 2501 to the matter. Furthermore, the State's peremptory exception of prescription raised in the Court regarding the applicability of La. C.C. art. 3499 is moot. Next, Judge Kirby addresses the State's peremptory exception of no cause of action objecting to the Plaintiffs' claim for the mineral royalties. He finds no merit to the State's argument that the Plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement of the mineral royalties is merely one of unjust enrichment whose remedy is against the unit operators only, and its reliance on Taylor v. Woodpecker Corp. is misplaced. Taylor is distinguishable from the case at hand, as the defendant in Taylor was the purchaser of production, not the royalty recipient. That being the case, the Judge in Taylor concluded that the purchaser could not be made to pay twice; rather the recipient of the proceeds (the operator) was responsible for the reimbursement. In the case, a review of the petition, and of the evidence adduced without objection, reveals that the operative facts which give rise to the litigation are that the State granted mineral leases on the Plaintiffs' lands, and received mineral royalties from those leases. Accepting these facts as true, the Plaintiffs have asserted a cause of action against the State for mineral royalties pursuant to La. C.C. art. 488. Based on the foregoing, the peremptory exception of no cause of action filed by the State is overruled. For the reasons expressed, Judge Kirby reversed in part the court of appeal judgment insofar as it upheld the award of $28,745,438.40, and the interest thereon, to the Lake Plaintiffs, and the award of $9,550,800, and the interest thereon, to the Swamp Plaintiffs, the owners of the overflow lands, for compensation for the inverse condemnation of their lands by the State. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/7J47JT from Leagle.com. MATTEL INC: NOMERS Sues Over Decline in Stock's Market Value ------------------------------------------------------------ NEW ORLEANS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MATTEL, INC., MARGARET H. GEORGIADIS, YNON KREIZ, JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER, and PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01056 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions concerning Mattel's financial condition, its internal control over financial reporting, and PwC's disqualifying conflicts of interest as Mattel's auditor, which resulted in the decline of the market value of Mattel's stock. The complaint is a securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Mattel common stock between August 2, 2017, and August 8, 2019, inclusive. The claims asserted are alleged against the Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff contends that Mattel misled investors concerning its financial condition and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, including by understating its income tax expense by $109 million in the third quarter of 2017 and then by working with its auditor, PwC, to manipulate the Company's accounting to conceal this misstatement and avoid restating the Company's financial results. The truth began to be revealed on August 8, 2019, when, after the close of trading, Mattel disclosed that it was made aware of an anonymous whistleblower letter and that, as a result, it was abruptly cancelling a $250 million debt offering scheduled to close that day. In response to this news, Mattel's stock price fell from $13.43 per share on August 8, 2019, to $11.31 per share on August 9, 2019, on unusually high trading volume, a decline of over 15% in one trading day. On October 29, 2019, the Company admitted that, following an investigation by its Audit Committee, it would be restating Mattel's financial reports for the third quarter 2017 and year-end 2017 and revising its financial reports for its previously issued 2016, 2017, and 2018 annual financial statements, and that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was not effective. According to the results of the internal investigation, Mattel determined that "lapses in judgment by management contributed to these failures" and announced the resignation of Defendant CFO Euteneuer. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of Mattel's stock, the Plaintiff asserts that it and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company founded in 1945. The Company is headquartered in El Segundo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE: Rosario Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIREYA ROSARIO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC, a Florida for Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20441-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In March 2019, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt security guard. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee for the Defendant, and was paid an hourly wage. Throughout her employment, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of proper overtime wage compensation for her hours worked in excess for 40 hours each week, says the complaint. Metropolitan Protective Services was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Staroschak, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-807-7759 Facsimile: 954-807-7781 E-mail: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Sezanayev Suit Over False Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- VADIM SEZANAYEV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00565 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that MCM violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending false, deceptive, and or misleading debt collection letter. Prior to March 13, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to collect alleged debt. The Plaintiff avers that he was left to believe, as would any least sophisticated consumer, that had he accepted option 1, 2, or 3, that he would be receiving a discount on the current balance. As such, the Defendant's statement was false, deceptive, and or misleading, and the Defendant's conduct harmed the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the FDCPA. MCM was founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com - and - Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: dan@cml.legal NAT'L FOOTBALL: Minister to Sue Over Super Bowl 54 Halftime Show ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Axelrod, writing for WKYC Studios, reports that regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, it's undeniable that Sunday's (February 2) Super Bowl halftime show was a polarizing one. One Ohio man, however, plans on taking his criticism of the performance a step further than most. In a video posted to his Facebook page, Dave Daubenmire revealed his wish to sue the NFL, the show's sponsor, Pepsi and his local cable provider for the halftime show, which was headlined by Jennifer Lopez and Shakira. A minister and former high school football coach, Daubenmire described the halftime show as a "strip club performance" and said that he was upset that it aired without properly advising viewers. "There was no warning. There was no 'caution: under the age of 18' or 'caution: under the age of 13,'" Daubenmire said. "We were watching a football game. People tuned in to watch a football game and what do you know, the next thing you have in front of you? You've got debauchery. Folks, are we going to protect our children or not?" Daubenmire proceeded to take issue with what he described as Lopez and Shakira's attire, "pole dancing" and "crotch shots." "Why are they allowed to pump that right into my home without my approval?" he asked. "Isn't there something out there, contributing to the delinquency of a minor? "We're going to continue to get this kind of stuff as long as we put up with it. I'm looking for a lawyer out there who knows about -- what do they call those things? Class action lawsuits, where a group of people says enough is enough." Daubenmire, who currently lives in Hebron, Ohio, then put out a plea to have any lawyers interested in representing him call him. The former head coach of London High School, Daubenmire is no stranger to the legal system as it relates to the First Amendment. In 1999, a settlement was reached between the American Civil Liberties Union and London City Schools after it was found that Daubenmire's coaching staff breached the separation of church and state by leading prayers and passing out scriptural verse to players. In the days since (February 3) Facebook rant, Daubenmire has gained no shortage of online attention. That, however, hasn't slowed down the host of "Coach Dave Live," who told The Daily Caller that he'd be satisfied with an $867 trillion settlement. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Clete Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-00201, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 25, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01287 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from claims of personal injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NEW YORK CITY: Class Action Lawsuit Targets Greedy Landlords ------------------------------------------------------------ Isabel Vincent, writing for New York Post, reports that New York City tenants could see a $200 million windfall in back rent as dozens of lawsuits against greedy landlords make their way through the courts. More than 70 class action lawsuits are targeting landlords who received a city property tax benefit known as J-51 to revamp residential buildings throughout the five boroughs, but then destabilized the units and began to charge market rates, says a housing rights nonprofit that has spearheaded some of the court actions. The J-51 tax benefits are only for rent-stabilized buildings. But a lack of oversight on the part of the city and state allowed landlords to destabilize the units and charge market rents. "Tenants are shocked that landlords are receiving benefits and not giving back affordable housing," said Aaron Carr, founder and executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative. Carr said his group has helped launch 55 J-51-related lawsuits since 2016, most of them benefiting low income and working class families. Many of the building owners end up settling the lawsuits, with some tenants splitting back rent windfalls in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said. But some of the class actions also benefit wealthier tenants, buoyed by a 2009 state appeals court ruling that said that residential building owners receiving the tax benefit could not deregulate any of their apartments. Current and former tenants at 444 E. 82nd St., are poised to rake in more than $11.5 million in settlement payments from a class-action lawsuit against the building's owner, Clermont-York Associates, LLC, according to a notice from a claims administration firm mailed out last week. The building's owner is affiliated with the Feil Group which owns more than $7 billion worth of real estate across the US. The multi-million dollar settlement has many landlords crying foul. "What's important to understand is that tenants who are bringing these cases entered voluntarily into their leases and are now looking for a windfall," said Mitchell Posilkin, chief counsel at the Rent Stabilization Association which represents thousands of property owners in New York. "Rental history for each apartment is unique, and often people entered into their agreements agreeing to pay market rent. This is not about low income tenants." [GN] NEW YORK CITY: Special Education Complaints Spark Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Zimmerman, writing for Bklyner, reports that the city's special education complaint system is buckling under a glut of unresolved cases, with delays routinely violating students' civil rights, according to a new class action lawsuit. The city and state education departments -- which both have roles overseeing the complaint system -- have "acted with deliberate or reckless indifference" to students' rights, says the federal lawsuit filed Friday, February 14, by the New York Legal Assistance Group and the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. Families whose requests for additional services are denied by schools, or who believe their child's academic setting is inadequate, have a legal right to file a complaint with the city's education department, and their cases are required to be resolved within 75 days. This can include a case where a student isn't receiving physical therapy sessions that are listed on her Individualized Education Program (a legal document known as an IEP), or a case where parents are seeking tuition reimbursement for a private school because no public schools offer the required services. The city faces more than 10,000 open complaints, nearly 70% of which have blown past the legal deadline for their resolution, forcing families to wait months or even years before receiving the special education services they're entitled to, according to the complaint. "Despite knowing about these delays for years, the defendants have failed to repair [the city education department's] severely broken hearing system," the lawsuit says. "The price for this dysfunctional system has been paid by New York's most vulnerable residents." Filed on behalf of five families who have experienced delays, the lawsuit represents an escalation from advocates, who have repeatedly called on city and state officials to take more dramatic action. But despite those pleas -- and even a state corrective action plan directed at the city -- there are signs that the situation has only become more dire. The city's education department has been inundated with a growing number of cases with complaints doubling over the past five years. These challenges are reviewed by an independent hearing officer, under a process that by law is supposed to take no longer than 75 days from the moment a complaint is filed until a decision is issued. But the average amount of time it takes to resolve a case has ballooned to 259 days, a 74% increase since the 2014-15 school year. Advocates said the delays are especially hard on low-income families, who are unable to pay for services out-of-pocket and hope the city reimburses them later, a common practice among more affluent families. "They don't have the money to put up front to get the services, so they're disadvantaged far worse," said Nelson Mar, Esq., an attorney at Bronx Legal Services, which represents low-income families. "The laws are very clear that this process is supposed to happen quickly. When it doesn't happen, these children are severely impacted." Still, even if a family finally makes it to a hearing - and wins - the education department routinely continues to delay services, a practice that is the subject of a separate legal complaint. "Every step in the process really is broken," said Rebecca Shore, the litigation director for Advocates for Children. [GN] NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Breuer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ester Breuer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-01595 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. 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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com NYCRC LLC: TPBC Sues Over Fraud in GWBBS Development Project ------------------------------------------------------------ TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORP., individually and, as to Count I of the Complaint, on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Article 3-A of the N.Y. Lien Law v. NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00731-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), arises from an alleged massive and coordinated fraudulent misconduct relating to the George Washington Bridge Bus Station development project that resulted from the wrongful receipt of monies, which funds were allegedly absconded, stolen and/or otherwise diverted from statutory trust funds. The Defendants include GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE BUS STATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, LLC; GSNMF SUB-CDE 12 LLC; GSB NMTC INVESTOR LLC: LIIF SUB-CDE XXVI, LLC; DVCI CDE XIII, LLC; GWB NMTC INVESTMENT FUND LLC; GWB LEVERAGE LENDER, LLC; GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE BUS STATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, PHASE II, LLC; UPPER MANHATTAN EMPOWERMENT ZONE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; SLAYTON VENTURES, LLC; SLAYTON EQUITIES; SJM PARTNERS, LLC; SJM PARTNERS INC.; PAUL SLAYTON, an individual, STEPHEN GARCHIK, an individual; WILLIAM "TREY" BURKE, an individual, STEPHEN McBRIDE, an individual; and DOES 1-300, inclusive. The George Washington Bridge Bus Station, which first opened on January 17, 1963, acts as a transit facility operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the "Port Authority"). The station is built over the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (Interstate 95) on property owned in fee by the Port Authority on between 178th and 179th Streets and Fort Washington and Wadsworth Avenues (designated on the tax map of the City of New York as Block 2163 Lot 1 and Block 2176 Lot 17) (the "Property"). On June 30, 2011, the Port Authority approved a $183.2 million renovation and improvement plan for the George Washington Bridge Bus Station (the Project), which is located on the Property. The Project was a public private venture between the Port Authority, as owner of the Property, and non-party George Washington Bridge Development Venture LLC (the Developer), as ground lessee and developer/contractor. The Project included relocating the bus terminals to the third floor of the complex and creating a state-of-the-art ground transportation hub. The Project also entailed a new 15,000 square foot bus terminal that increased the number of gates from 17 to 22. Additionally, 85,000 square feet of the existing bus station was reconfigured and upgraded. By relocating the bus station terminal to the third floor of the complex, a retail center of approximately 129,000 square feet was created. According to the complaint, the Developer received Contractor Trust Funds and Owner Trust Funds in part to compensate the Plaintiff for construction work performed to improve the Property and the Project. Monies were supposed to be set aside explicitly for this purpose, and the Developer even approved the payment applications by issuing final copies thereof. However, the Developer failed to make payments thereon. Instead, the Developer made substantial payments to the Defendants and others, thus, depleting the monies set aside to compensate the Plaintiff. These were not payments made for any purpose defined in Lien Law section 71. The Plaintiff alleges that the Developer depleted the trust money before paying or discharging all of the trust claims. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants were aware of the fact that substantial contractor claims were going unpaid. TPBC and its affiliates are leading civil and building construction firms offering diversified general contracting and engineering services to private clients and public agencies throughout the world. TPBC has provided construction services since 1894 and has executed large complex projects throughout the United States. New York City Regional Center LLC provides commercial services. The Company offers economic development projects such as job creation, loans to enterprises, and domestic capital investments in real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Nida, Esq. Gabriel Henriquez, Esq. NIDA & ROMYN, P.C. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 286-3400 E-mail: rnida@nidaromyn.com ghenriquez@nidaromyn.com - and - Ira M. Schulman, Esq. Emily D. Anderson, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 37th Floor New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 808-2718 E-mail: schulmani@pepperlaw.com andersone@pepperlaw.com OAK TREE COUNTRY CLUB: Owners Settle Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Randy Ellis, writing for Oklahoman.com, reports that current and former owners of Oak Tree Country Club have reached a tentative settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by wait staff employees who alleged the owners kept service charge payments that were intended for them. The proposed agreement calls for the country club's current and former owners to pay a combined $125,000, with hundreds of current and former wait staff and bartenders potentially sharing in some of the settlement proceeds. Current owner ClubCorp NV II LLC would pay $95,000 of the settlement amount and former owner Oak Tree Partners LLC would pay $30,000. The agreement will not become final until it is approved by Oklahoma County District Judge Susan Stallings, who has scheduled a hearing on the matter for 10 a.m. March 5. Oak Tree Country Club workers who stand to benefit from the settlement include banquet servers, banquet captains, bartenders, beverage cart attendants, captains, servers and lead servers who were employed there between Jan. 1, 2012, and the date of settlement hearing approval. At issue in the lawsuit was who was entitled to receive the proceeds of mandatory service charges included on restaurant customers' bills after the wait staff was given a substantial pay increase in December 2012. Prior to that time, servers and certain other staff were paid $2.35 an hour and shared in service charge proceeds, according to court documents. But in December 2012, the base pay of servers was raised to $10 to $12 an hour and they no longer received money from the service charge fee. However, servers were allowed to keep any extra write-in tips or cash tips that they received. Wait staff argued that it was clear that the 18% service charge was intended to be a gratuity because some of the bills included a space for an "Addl Gratuity." They argued that would not have made sense if the service charge wasn't a gratuity. The owners countered by contending that wait staff were informed that the service charge was not a gratuity or tip and that notices to that effect were included at times in Oak Tree County Club menus. Although the owners have signed off on the proposed settlement, they continue to deny the wait staff's claims. The attorneys who represented the wait staff, Edward L. White, Esq. and Chris Harper, Esq., are asking the judge to award them 35% of the settlement amount off the top to compensate them for their legal work, plus additional money to pay for their expenses. Other off-the-top money is being requested for Stanley Musgrave and Austin Vaughan, two former wait staff employees who filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their fellow workers. In settlement agreements with current and former owners, the judge is being asked to award each of them up to $2,500 to compensate them for their work in the case. Like their fellow workers, they also would be entitled to receive a pro rata share of the settlement that would be based on the number of hours they worked. The tentative settlement includes a special provision to make sure no wait staff member who shares in the settlement would receive less than $25. As part of the proposed settlement, Musgrave and Vaughan are prohibited from seeking future employment with Oak Tree Partners, ClubCorp or any of their affiliates, or from disparaging those companies. The settlement also bans their attorneys from seeking publicity regarding the settlement, and says if they are contacted about the lawsuit, they "will state only that the lawsuit exists and has been resolved." The attorneys can be required to pay $5,000 in liquidated damages for each violation of that provision. Wait staff who stand to benefit from the settlement can opt out if they want. They also can submit written objections to the settlement or raise objections in person at the March 5 hearing. The country club's current and former owners have the option of backing out of the settlement if more than 10% of the wait staff in a position to benefit from the agreement choose to opt out, instead. [GN] OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Smith, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Oakley Transport Inc., Oakley Transportation Group, Inc. doing business as: Oakley Transport, Case No. 3:19-cv-05854, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2020. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-00417-WFJ-AAS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other labor. Oakley Transport, Inc., provides trucking transportation services. The Company offers rail transfer and logistic services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7234 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 Email: dbrome@nka.com helland@nka.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. James Anthony Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 Email: ceckhart@scopelitis.com jeckhart@scopelitis.com - and - Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 795-4700 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com - and - Daniel Richard Lyman, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1001 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 852-6910 Fax: (415) 852-6925 Email: daniel.lyman@fordharrison.com - and - David Lishian Cheng, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Fax: (213) 237-2401 Email: dcheng@fordharrison.com - and - Emily Allison Quillen, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON, & FEARY, P.C. 777 Main Street, Suite 3450 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 869-1700 Fax: (817) 878-9472 Email: equillen@scopelitis.com OMNI SPECIALTY: Thiry Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Thiry, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC, O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. doing business as: O'Reilly Auto Parts, Ozark Automotive Distributors Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03366, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 24, 2020. The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00132-JTM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Omni Specialty Packaging, L.L.C. manufactures, markets, and distributes lubricants and chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. 5009 West 114 Street Leawood, KS 66211 Phone: (913) 338-3891 - and - Dirk Leon Hubbard, Esq. Thomas V. Bender, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 421-0700 Fax: (816) 421-0899 Email: tbender@hab-law.com - and - Gene P. Graham, Esq. William L Carr, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR 19049 E Valley View Parkway, Suite C Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 Email: ggraham@wgblaw.com bcarr@wagblaw.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (281) 488-8854 Fax: (281) 488-8867 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com ON GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY SMITH, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. ON GRID INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, Case No. 2:20-cv-00058-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that On Grid failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like him overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Mr. Smith worked for On Grid as a Commissioning Manager, creating reports and site-specific documentation about progress, completion, and obstacles. He alleges that On Grid paid him and other workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. On Grid provides technical consulting solutions in the water technologies and power generation industries. On Grid staffs employees to these industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Harris D. Butler, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@myback wages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@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 PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Streety, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC (W.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Parsley as a Drilling Superintendent, and for the last three years the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff and other workers never received overtime pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint. Instead of receiving overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and others as independent contractors and paid these workers a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate) without overtime compensation. Parsley Energy is a Permian-focused independent oil and natural gas company with an extensive operating history.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PATTERN ENERGY: Arbitrage Fund Challenges Merger With CPPIB ----------------------------------------------------------- The Arbitrage Fund; Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Fund, LP; Morningstar Alternatives Fund a series of Morningstar Funds Trust; Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies Fund; Columbia Multi-Manager Alternative Strategies Fund; Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund; Water Island LevArb Fund, LP and Water Island Long/Short Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC.; ALAN R. BATKIN; EDMUND JOHN PHILIP BROWNE; RICHARD A. GOODMAN; DOUGLAS G. HALL; PATRICIA M. NEWSON; MONA K. SUTPHEN; MICHAEL GARLAND and PATTERN ENERGY GROUP 2 LP (d/b/a PATTERN DEVELOPMENT), Case No. 1:20-cv-00275-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Pattern Energy challenging a proposed merger with Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This class action alleges violations by (i) Pattern Energy, (ii) Pattern Energy's Board of Directors; and (iii) Pattern Energy Group 2 LP of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to merge Pattern Energy with Canada Pension Plan Investment Board ("CPPIB"), cashing out all of the common stock of Pattern Energy and delisting Pattern Energy from the NASDAQ. On February 4, 2020, Pattern Energy filed a Definitive Proxy with the Securities and Exchange Commission that purported to describe the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 3, 2019, pursuant to which CPPIB will acquire all of Pattern Energy's common stock for $26.75 per share. The Proxy also purports to detail the sales process that resulted in the Merger Agreement, including a concurrent and related process to sell Pattern Energy's privately-owned sister company, Pattern Development. The Proxy purports to disclose the details of CPPIB's acquisition of the public company, Pattern Energy, without revealing the details of the sale of the related private company, Pattern Development. As a result, the Plaintiffs aver, Pattern Energy shareholders are only given half the story of the sale of these intertwined companies. The Plaintiffs assert that the Proxy also omits material details pertaining to interested parties to the Proposed Transaction and vital valuation metrics for the deal. This includes the Proxy's incomplete and misleading information concerning the Company's financial projections prepared by Pattern Energy management, and the financial analysis conducted by Pattern Energy's financial advisor on the deal, Evercore Group L.L.C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege herein that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by filing a false and misleading Proxy. In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without disclosure of the material information, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs are owners of shares of Pattern Energy stock eligible to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Pattern Energy Group, Inc. is an independent power company focused on owning and operating power projects with stable long-term cash flows in attractive markets with potential for continued growth of our business. The Company owns interests in wind power projects located in the United States, Canada, and Chile. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Joshua K. Porter, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Email: jporter@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com - and - Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1370 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 231-1500 Facsimile: (646) 851-0076 Email: ckupka@fksfirm.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sgarlata Class Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a ruling in the class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC, is still pending. In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6 million customers. The company had received a number of governmental inquiries, including from state attorneys general, and the company may be subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in the future. In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and Hamed Shahbazi, the former chief executive officer of TIO, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The initial compliant alleged that Defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March 16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim co-lead counsel. On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA, Inc., and John Kunze (the Company's Vice President, Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as additional defendants. The first amended complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November 10, 2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the announcement. Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motion, without prejudice, on December 13, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2019. The second amended complaint alleges substantially the same theory of liability as the first amended complaint, but no longer names Hamed Shabazi as a defendant. The remaining Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 15, 2019, and a hearing was held on July 16, 2019. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice on September 18, 2019; plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. PayPal said, "We may be subject to additional litigation relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's operations in the future." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. PETER NYGARD: Class Action Alleges Rape, Sexual Trafficking ----------------------------------------------------------- Devika Desai, writing for The National Post, reports that ten unidentified women have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing Canadian fashion mogul Peter Nygard of rape and sexual trafficking. In a press release on the lawsuit released Thursday, February 13, the women state that "Nygard lured and enticed young, impressionable, and often impoverished children and women with cash payments and false promises of lucrative modelling opportunities in order to assault, rape, and sodomize them. When the victims were not swayed by promises, many were drugged to force compliance with Nygard's sexual desires." Many of the women were younger than 18 at the time of the alleged assaults. Nygard, 77, is the fashion executive, founder and chairman of Winnipeg-based Nygard International, known for making and selling women wear. According to the press release, Nygard would instruct his employees to "procure" the children and then take them to lavish "pamper parties", where they were "plied with drugs and alcohol" and then violently assaulted. In one of the cases, Nygard is alleged to have brought a 15-year-old girl to his mansion in the Bahamas, where he attempted to sodomize her, raped her and then asked her to defecate in his mouth before offering her cash. Many of the alleged incidents occurred at Nygard's luxury Mayan-style mansion at Lyford Cay in the Bahamas, according to the release. "After hearing these tragic stories, we were compelled to act and bring a voice to those who have been hurt for so long," said Greg Gutzler, Esq., one of the lawyers who filed the suit. "We know many others were afraid to come forward initially and hope that this lawsuit will pave the way for them to also seek justice. "The facts in this case represent the tip of the iceberg of an international sex trafficking ring that ends today." Ken Frydman, a spokesperson for Nygard, said the accusations in the class action suit were false. He added that the lawsuit was "just the latest in a 10-plus year string of attempts to try to destroy the reputation of a man through false statements" and that it stems from a dispute between Nygard and his neighbour in the Bahamas, hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon. "The allegations are completely false, without foundation and are vigorously denied," Frydman told the National Post. "Peter Nygard looks forward to fully exposing this scam and once and for all clearing his name." The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, also mentions several of Nygard's New York-based corporate entities for their role in "financing, facilitating and covering up the abuse." This hasn't been the first time Nygard has been accused of sexual assault. In the 1990s, he paid to settle three sexual harassment complaints filed by former employees in Manitoba. Last November, Tribune 242, a Bahamas newspaper, published that the police were investigating six allegations of rape made against Nygard. "The complaint alleges that for years, it has been no secret that Nygard bribes Bahamian government and police officials and uses intimidation tactics to coerce silence," reads the press release. "Sex crimes are widely under-investigated and often swept under the rug," said Lisa Haba of Haba Law Firm, who also filed the suit. "With this lawsuit, we aim to give these victims a voice and hold Mr. Nygard, and his network of accomplices, accountable for their horrendous conduct. The abuse stops here." [GN] PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Decertifies Class in Radford FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES RADFORD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEVATOR COMPANIES, LTD. d/b/a/ BRAKE CHECK, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-3381 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, (i) granted Brake Check's motion to decertify; (ii) granted Brake Check's summary judgment motion; and (iii) denied Brake Check's motion for sanctions. The Defendant asks the court to decertify a conditionally certified collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA). Radford, a Brake Check Service Manager, sued on behalf of himself and other Service Managers, alleging that Brake Check improperly classified them as exempt from the Act's overtime compensation requirements. The Court conditionally certified a class of current and former Service Managers who worked at Brake Check during the three years before the filing of the lawsuit. Radford and two of the opt-in plaintiffs, DaJuan Jones and Michael Murehead, also asserted retaliation claims under the Act. After representative discovery, Brake Check moved for decertification, for sanctions against Murehead, for summary judgment, and for attorneys' fees and costs. Brake Check is a chain automotive repair shop that does oil changes, brake work, and alignments. The Plaintiffs are 45 Service Managers from Brake Check locations throughout Texas. After the Court permitted discovery as to 10 representative Plaintiffs, Brake Check designated two individuals from locations in Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston, Missouri City, and San Antonio as the representative plaintiffs from whom it wanted discovery. One representative Plaintiff, Eric Sanchez, withdrew from the case. Discovery revealed some undisputed facts. Each Service Manager had the same job description and the same pay schedule. Service Managers performed a variety of tasks, including making general car repairs, training new team members, interacting with customers, managing inventory, and ordering new parts. Service Managers also assigned tasks to Automotive Technicians; ensured that the Technicians safely performed their tasks; opened and closed the stores; and ran the stores when Store or Corporate Directors were absent. Service Managers are paid $600 per week plus a potential monthly bonus based on a store's profits. Brake Check deposed the nine remaining representative Plaintiffs, plus opt-in Plaintiff Stephen Gordon James and the three Plaintiffs who asserted retaliation claims under the Act -- Radford, Jones, and Murehead. Radford deposed Allen Hakes, Brake Check's Vice President of Operations and corporate representative for the case, and obtained over 4,000 pages of records from Brake Check. After the representative discovery, Brake Check moved to decertify the class, arguing that the class members are not similarly situated. It also moved for sanctions against Murehead, contending that his claims should be dismissed with prejudice because he committed perjury in his Feb. 14, 2019, declaration. Finally, Brake Check moved for summary judgment, arguing that it properly classified the Service Managers as exempt from the Act's overtime requirements and that it fired the three Service Managers asserting retaliation claims for legitimate reasons. Based on the disparate testimony and other record evidence, Judge Rosenthal finds that the individual Plaintiffs' job experiences were too diverse to sustain a collective action. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs gave different accounts of the amount of time they spent on different tasks. Without a more homogenous class, there can be no collective determination on the exemption defenses Brake Check asserts. Also, the record does not show that the Plaintiffs are similarly situated enough to continue to proceed as a collective action. Brake Check's motion to decertify is granted. The Plaintiffs other than James Radford are dismissed without prejudice. The case is now an individual action on behalf of Radford. Judge Rosenthal also finds that the evidence in the record supports concluding that Radford was paid a salary of over $455 a week; was primarily a manager; customarily oversaw at least two other employees; and had input on the disciplinary process for Automotive Technicians. Because undisputed record evidence -- including Radford's own testimony -- shows that the executive exemption applies, Brake Check's motion for summary judgment on the overtime claims is granted as to Radford. The Judge need not address the parties' arguments about the combination exception. Brake Check's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims is granted as to Radford. Murehead's and Jones' claims are dismissed without prejudice. Brake Check asks the Court to dismiss all of Murehead's claims with prejudice based on an allegedly perjured statement Murehead made in his declaration. It also requests attorneys' fees and costs in bringing the sanctions motion. Murehead responds that the motion for sanctions should be denied because he lied in his declaration to protect a fellow employee; the misstatement does not materially affect his retaliation claim; and because Murehead was not trying to deceive the Court. Judge Rosenthal finds that Murehead's conduct does not demonstrate "stubborn resistance to authority." Instead, it shows his misconceptions of the legal process and misplaced concern for his fellow employee. In his declaration, Murehead stated that he delayed joining the lawsuit for fear of retaliation. During his deposition, however, Murehead stated that another Brake Check employee, Russell Weeks, told him about Flores's statement, not Brian Smith. The motion for sanctions is denied, the Court rules. Brake Check is not entitled to attorneys' fees or costs based on Murehead's conflicting statements or the Plaintiffs' overall conduct in the case. Fees are awarded when a party has litigated in bad faith or willfully disobeyed the court, and there is no evidence of such conduct in the case. The requests for attorneys' fees and costs in Brake Check's motions for summary judgment and for sanctions are denied, the Court reiterates. Judge Rosenthal concludes that after representative discovery and on the expansive record, the conditionally certified class is not similarly situated. The Judge granted Brake Check's motion to decertify and dismissed the opt-in Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. The statute of limitations as to the dismissed Plaintiffs' claims is tolled until Feb. 25, 2020. The Judge granted Brake Check's summary judgment motion as to Radford. Finally, the Judge denied Brake Check's motion for sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/OUpoij from Leagle.com. James Radford, Plaintiff, represented by Tracey Dominique Lewis, Rosenburg Sprovach & Gregg M. Rosenberg, Rosenberg Sprovach. Pevator Companies, Ltd., doing business as Brake Check, Defendant, represented by Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@reedsmith -- Reed Smith. PNC FINANCIAL: Komorksi Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Michael Komorksi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-01060, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 21, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01265 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an American bank holding company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] PRIMO WATER: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Cott Corporation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PRIMO WATER CORPORATION, BILLY D. PRIM, SUSAN E. CATES, RICHARD A. BRENNER, JACK C. KILGORE, EMMA BATTLE, MALCOLM MCQUILKIN, CHARLES NORRIS, DAVID L. WARNOCK, COTT CORPORATON, COTT HOLDINGS INC., FORE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, and FORE MERGER LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to a proposed agreement and plan of merger with Cott Corporation, Cott Holdings Inc., Fore Merger LLC, and Fore Acquisition Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Purchaser commenced an exchange offer to purchase all of Primo Water's outstanding common stock for: $14.00 per share in cash; 1.0229 shares of Parent common stock; or $5.04 in cash and 0.6549 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Primo Water. The Exchange Offer was set to expire on February 25, 2020. On January 29, 2020, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of 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. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm. The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant, the owner of Primo Water common stock. Primo Water is North America's leading single source provider of water dispensers, multi-gallon purified bottled water, and self-service refill drinking water. The company's dispensers, exchange, and refill products are available in thousands of retail locations and online throughout the United States and Canada. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com 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 QUINSTREET INC: Faces Mousa TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- AYMAN MOUSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUINSTREET, INC., d/b/a DEBTHELP.COM and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01136 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning in July 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -5624, in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services. The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place their calls to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit their services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did also not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS, says the complaint. QuinStreet is a publicly traded marketing company based in Foster City, California. QuinStreet offers performance-based marketing and search engine marketing services. QuinStreet was founded in 1999, and has launched or acquired dozens of websites and other media properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com RAPID RESPONSE: Smith Sues in N.D. New York Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporated. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporated, Case No. 5:20-cv-00202-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporation provides monitoring and security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Peluso, Jr., Esq. DREYER BOYAJIAN LaMARCHE SAFRANKO 75 Columbia Street Albany, NY 12210 Phone: (518) 463-7784 Fax: (518) 463-4039 Email: jpeluso@dblawny.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Saldana FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services, LP. The case is styled as Josue Saldana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01879 (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[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 RICHEMONT NORTH: Joye Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIYANNA JOYE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 650722/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Jan. 30, 2020), seeks to recover pursuant to the New York Labor Law minimum wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and other non-exempt workers employed by the Defendant at its locations in New York. The Plaintiff alleges that during many workweeks throughout her employment, she has been required to work more than 40 hours; however, the Defendant has failed to include her commission payments in its calculation of her base rate of pay, resulting in underpayment of the overtime compensation owed by the Defendant. Ms. Joye was employed by the Defendant in Central Valley, New York, as a Sales Associate from May 11, 2008, until July 26, 2019. Richemont manufactures luxury goods. The Company provides wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Keniry, Esq. Thomas R. Fallati, Esq. TABNER, RYAN AND KENIRY, LLP 18 Corporate Woods Blvd. Albany, NY 12211 Telephone: (518) 512-5307 - and - Bobby Saadian, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricoh USA, Inc., removed the case captioned as MARIO SARABIA, on behalf of himself and for all similarly situated persons, and the general public v. RICOH USA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50 ALL INCLUSIVE, Case No. 30-2019-01 1 15709-CU-WT-CXC (Filed Dec. 2, 2019), from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 31, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01062 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay unpaid missed rest breaks and missed meal breaks, and to pay overtime and minimum wages. Ricoh is a Japanese multinational imaging and electronics company.[BN] Defendant Ricoh USA, Inc., is represented by: Dennis M. Brown, Esq. Marlene S. Muraco, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 Telephone: 408 998 4150 Facsimile: 408 288 5686 E-mail: dmbrown littler.com mmuraco@littler.com RING LLC: Smart Home Security Devices Are Unsecured, Politi Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN AND JENNIFER POLITI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01034 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2020), assert claims against Ring for negligence, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, breach of privacy, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Legal Remedies Act. Ring markets smart home security devices, including Wi-Fi enabled video surveillance cameras and video door bells. Ring's brand is built on its promise of safety and security for its customers' homes, telling customers that its products provide "peace of mind." According to the complaint, Ring's lax security standards resulted in third-parties' ability to use the devices to intrude on Ring customers' home--shattering the promised "peace of mind." The Plaintiff contends that consumers around the country have reported unauthorized individuals accessing their Ring devices, spying on them through the Ring cameras inside their homes, and harassing them through the microphone function on the Ring devices. Plaintiffs John and Jennifer Politi were some of those consumers. In early December 2019, an unauthorized user invaded their home and privacy through their Ring camera and microphone, leaving them terrified, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages as a result of Ring's failure to properly secure and safeguard their Ring devices and accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-762-1910 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Sullivan Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JAMES D. SULLIVAN, LESLIE ADDISON, WILLIAM S. SUMNER, JR., RONALD S. HAUSTHOR, GORDON GARRISON, LINDA CRAWFORD, TED CRAWFORD, and BILLY J. KNIGHT, individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-125 (D. Vt.), Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont denied the parties' motions for summary judgment. In the groundwater contamination class action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover the expense of medical monitoring in future years to determine whether class members who currently test positive for exposure to PFOA have contracted an illness or medical condition associated with exposure to the substance. The Defendant opposes the claim on several grounds. These include arguments that the medical monitoring remedy is unavailable under Vermont law and that it is not supported by the particular facts of the case. In the course of a pre-trial conference in September 2019, the Court ordered the parties to complete briefing on the medical monitoring issue by Nov. 1, 2019, with the Defendant's summary judgment motion due on the same date. The parties have been helpful in complying with the request. The Plaintiffs have filed a timely motion for summary judgment on the medical monitoring issue. The Defendant has filed a response as well as its own motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Defendant filed a reply. Judge Crawford holds that the choice between permitting and excluding a medical monitoring remedy for potential future illness is a choice between competing values. The jurisdictions which do not permit the remedy do so on the basis of concerns about unforeseen economic consequences to the Defendant. The jurisdictions which allow the remedy value the potential saving of lives which may be achieved through early detection and treatment. The cases lie along a continuum from the smokers' cases in which medical monitoring is consistently denied to cases like Save the Children and Sadler, in which victims of a catastrophic accident or negligent health care seek follow-up monitoring for potential illness. The case falls much closer to the cases in which medical monitoring has been permitted by the highest courts in other states because of the presence of an objective test for exposure and the relatively small, defined class of people who tested positive for PFOA after consuming water within the affected area. For these reasons, the Judge anticipates that it is the type of case in which Vermont decisional law will follow cases permitting proof of the elements of a medical monitoring remedy. The Judge turns now to the parties' motions for summary judgment which seek judgment on the basis of the record evidence before the court. Applying the familiar summary judgment standard, he begins with the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs seek a ruling that they are entitled to the medical monitoring remedy as a matter of law. The short answer is that they are required to prove their case at trial. It is hardly an exaggeration to observe that almost every fact in the case is in dispute. These include the facts necessary to support a medical monitoring claim. In addition to its argument that medical monitoring is not available as a matter of law, the Defendant offers a separate reason why the facts developed in the case, particularly as they relate to the medical histories of the named plaintiffs, preclude a medical monitoring remedy. In its motion for summary judgment, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not adduced any admissible expert evidence as to the essential element of specific causation as to any of the named Plaintiffs -- that is, that exposure to PFOA from the Chemfab facility caused them an increased risk of adverse health conditions, as opposed to whether it can do so in general. The Plaintiffs respond that it is their burden to prove general causation -- but not that Defendant has caused an identifiable health problem in any individual. They seek medical monitoring to avoid or reduce exactly that outcome. Judge Crawford has rejected the Defendant's legal argument that medical monitoring is unavailable to asymptomatic individuals. The remaining issues concern the nature of the proof required to prove causation of increased risk of illness. In addition, the Defendant seeks to rule out any relief to the named Plaintiffs because they receive equivalent and sufficient monitoring through their existing physicians. At trial, the Court will determine as a matter of law the level of causation which forms part of the Plaintiffs' burden of proof. Since general causation appears at this time to be the correct legal standard, the absence of an expert report on specific causation of a health risk documented in each Plaintiff's medical history does not result in summary judgment for the Defendant. Finally, Judge Crawford agrees with the Plaintiffs. Assuming that the Plaintiffs meet their burden of proof on general causation, differences among individual class members are resolved through the remedy and not by entering partial summary judgment against one named Plaintiff or another. The simplest example is testing for conditions limited to one gender such as pregnancy complications. Any medical monitoring injunction would limit the test to women of childbearing age. It is unnecessary to enter partial summary judgment against the male Plaintiffs on the issue. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crawford denied both motions for summary judgment. The Judge permitted the Plaintiffs to seek a medical monitoring remedy at trial. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Decision is available at https://is.gd/WEcufS from Leagle.com. John Schraven, Special Master, pro se. James D. Sullivan, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Leslie Addison, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, William S. Sumner, Jr., Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Ronald S. Hausthor, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Linda Crawford, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Gordon Garrison, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated & Ted Crawford, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David F. Silver, Esq. -- dsilver@barrsternberg.com -- Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C., Douglas A. Ruley, Davis & Whitlock, P.C., Emily J. Joselson, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Gary A. Davis, Esq., Davis & Whitlock, P.C., pro hac vice, James W. Swift, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, James S. Whitlock, Esq., Davis & Whitlock, P.C., pro hac vice, Justin G. Sherman, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP & Rachel B. Strecker, Esq., Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C. Billy J. Knight, individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emily J. Joselson, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, James W. Swift, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, James S. Whitlock, Esq., Davis & Whitlock, P.C., Justin G. Sherman, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP & Rachel B. Strecker, Esq., Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bert Wolff, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, David Weinraub, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq. -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq. -- lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Marina Schwarz, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A. LaFata, Esq. -- paullafata@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Esq. -- rachelpassarettiwu@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen N. Williams, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy C. Doherty, Jr., Esq., Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC. SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Change Venue in Pizana False Ad Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAUL PIZANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied SanMedica's motions to change venue and stay the action. Pizana filed the putative class action on May 9, 2018, challenging the advertising and efficacy of SeroVital-hgh, a purported Human Growth Hormone ("HGH") supplement purchased by him in early 2017. The Product was produced by the Defendant, a Utah-headquartered corporation. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on Nov. 13, 2019, asserts three causes of action: 1) a violation of California Civil Code Section 1750, et. seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); 2) a violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500, et. seq., the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and 3) a violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq., the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The crux of the Plaintiff's suit is that the Defendant's Product, despite being marketed as an HGH supplement that can make users look and feel decades -- not years, but decades -- younger, is no more effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo and is therefore worthless to California consumers. On June 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to change venue to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which thie Court denied on Sept. 30, 2019. It now moves again for a change of venue, this time to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Defendant also moves to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to change venue. The Plaintiff filed his oppositions to both motions on Jan. 8, 2020, and the Defendant filed its replies on Jan. 15, 2020. The Defendant moves to change venue, arguing that the filing of Diebler v. SanMedica Int'l LLC, a nearly identical class action lawsuit against the Defendant in the District of New Jersey by the same attorneys and firms in the present case makes litigating both cases on distant coasts, inconvenient, inefficient, and contrary to judicial economy. The solution, according to the Defendant, is to transfer the action to the District of Utah. Because the Plaintiff does not contest that venue would be proper in the District of Utah, Judge Drozd focuses on the convenience and fairness inquiry. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's choice of forum deserves little weight, given that the case is a class action where most of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent resides outside of the forum and that the Plaintiff's counsel has now chosen to litigate these issues in two separate forums. Judge Drozd concludes that the Plaintiff's choice of the Eastern District as forum for the action deserves at least some deference, weighing against transfer to the District of Utah. He finds that because the Defendant seeks a change of venue to the District of Utah, the third factor, whether the Plaintiff's claims are based on the state law of his chosen district, now also weighs against transfer. Moreover, the fact that the Plaintiff's counsel participated in the filing of the action in Diebler does not invalidate his choice of forum in the case and has little bearing on whether this case should be transferred to the District of Utah. Next, Judge Drozd holds that the Defendant's lack of detail in support of its motion leaves him to speculate about the potential inconveniences that the Defendant's Utah-based witnesses might face versus the concrete inconveniences specifically identified by the Plaintiff. He therefore concludes that the convenience of the parties and witnesses weighs against a change of venue to the District of Utah. Given the fact that the Paintiff's physical evidence is also located in California, Judge Drozd concludes that the Defendant has not shown that transfer would eliminate, rather than shift, the inconvenience of costs. Therefore, the location of the sources of proof for the case is at best neutral with respect to transfer. The Defendant contends that, in the interest of justice, factors such as: 1) the ability of process to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining willing witnesses; and 2) the risk of inconsistent rulings and the burden on judicial resources due to concurrent proceedings here and in the District of New Jersey favor transfer to the District of Utah. Judge Drozd holds that neither argument is availing. First, the Defendant has failed to show that transfer would eliminate, rather than shift, the inconvenience of costs. Indeed, transfer to the District of Utah could possibly remove witnesses from reach of the court's subpoena power. Thus, the availability of witnesses weighs against a change of venue to the District of Utah. Second, the purported risk of inconsistent rulings and the burden on judicial resources weigh strongly against transfer to the District of Utah. The fact that a corporation makes decisions at its headquarters in another district does not negate the local impact of those decisions when they are implemented elsewhere. Judge Drozd must also consider the fact that the Plaintiff filed the case in the same district where he was exposed to the Defendant's marketing and where he purchased the Product, as these too are operative facts. Weighing the relative importance of both locations, Judge Drozd concludes that consideration of this factor weighs only slightly in favor of transfer to the District of Utah. Taking into account all of the factors analyzed, Judge Drozd concludes that Defendant has failed to justify transfer of the case to the District of Utah. Therefore, he denied the Defendant's motion to transfer. The Defendant has requested a stay pending of the action resolution of the motion to change venue. Because the order resolves the motion to change venue, the Defendant's request for a stay is denied as moot. The Defendant is directed to seek leave of the Court before filing any future motion to change venue in the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/EORQ3P from Leagle.com. Raul Pizana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shireen M. Clarkson - sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com - Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., Annick Marie Persinger -apersinger@tzlegal.com - Tycko & Zavareei, Matthew Theriault - mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com - Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. & Ryan Jack Clarkson - rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com - Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. Sanmedica International LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher B. Sullivan , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, David R. Parkinson , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason Kerr , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV , Law Office of John Fitzgerald, PC, Ronald F. Price , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice & Steven W. Garff , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, 5742 West Harold Gatty Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84116. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Melillo Suit Moved From New York to Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yesenia Melillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06376, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 21, 2020. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80250-RLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and metabolic disorders.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher M. Strongosky, Esq. DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Phone: ((212) 835-6243 Fax: 884-8543 SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Scholl Suit Moved From Minn. to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Scholl, Ryan Dahl, Brad Hoag, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-03044, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2020. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80269-RLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and metabolic disorders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda M. Williams, Esq. 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: awilliams@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 608 Second Avenue South 725 Northstar East Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: 496-6611 Email: phoward@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: 339-0981 Email: ymflaherty@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 318-1200 Fax: (415) 318-1300 SANOFI-AVENTIS: Chatman Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Renee Chatman, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01363, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2020. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80265-RLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and metabolic disorders. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julia Zousmer, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 353 N. Clark Street, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 995-6333 Email: jzousmer@kslaw.com SAVE-A-LOT HOLDINGS: Mislabels Truli Vanilla Drinks, Swantek Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Swantek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Save-A-Lot Holdings, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-00894 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to accurately indicate on the front label that its vanilla-flavored almondmilk beverages contained flavor from non-vanilla sources. Save-A-Lot manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla under the Truli brand (Products). The Products are available to consumers from Defendant's almost 1,300 Save A Lot grocery stores across the country and are sold in cartons of 64 OZ (1.89L). The Plaintiff contends that the representations are misleading because the Product does not contain the amount, type, strength of vanilla with respect to other flavoring components. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the Products because it knows consumers prefer foods that are flavored from food ingredients instead of added flavor ingredients and that contain enough of the characterizing food ingredients to flavor the Products. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant's intent was to secure economic advantage in the marketplace against competitors by appealing to consumers, who value products with sufficient amounts of the characterizing ingredients. The Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com SHANTA'S BAKERY: Dario Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Ubalda Yahuitl Dario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHANTA'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a 3 SISTERS' & SHANTA'S RESTAURANT & BAKERY, and LILOUTIE SINGH, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-01031 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage, to which the Plaintiff was entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in August 2017 until August 2019. SHANTA'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a 3 SISTERS' & SHANTA'S RESTAURANT & BAKERY, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Richmond Hill, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS C. GENTILE III, JOSE GARCIA, and JOHN GILSON, Case No. 4:20-cv-00077-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Feb. 24, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that resulted in the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit securities between October 31, 2019, and January 29, 2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Spirit lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) Spirit did not comply with its established accounting principles related to potential contingent liabilities; and (iii) as a result, the Defendants' statements about Spirit's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 30, 2020, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that Spirit had determined that it did not comply with its accounting procedures and that Defendants Garcia and Gilson had resigned. On this news, Spirit's stock price fell $2.56 per share, or 3.78%, to close at $65.08 per share on January 30, 2020. 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 Spirit securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Spirit designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - 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 - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- Sun Valley Packing, L.P., removed the case captioned as LETICIA PINEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 19CECG03846 (Filed on Oct. 23, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Jan. 31, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00169-DAD-EPG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code. Sun Valley is family owned farming operation delivering farm-fresh, and ready-to-eat fruits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Bollinger, ESq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (818) 963-5954 E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com Sun Valley Packing is represented by: Thomas Elmer Campagne, Esq. CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE Airport Office Center 1685 North Helm Avenue Fresno, CA 93727 Telephone: (559) 255-1637 Facsimile: (559) 252-9617 E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com TALLGRASS ENERGY: Scarantino Objects Proposed Sale to Blackstone ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, WILLIAM R. MOLER, TERRANCE D. TOWNER, ROY N. COOK, THOMAS A. GERKE, MARCELINO OREJA ARBURUA, GUY G. BUCKLEY, WALLACE C. HENDERSON, and MATTHEW J.K. RUNKLE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00159-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2020), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stemming from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Tallgrass will be acquired by affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, Enagas, GIC, NPS, and USS--the Sponsors. Tallgrass is a growth-oriented midstream energy infrastructure company operating across 11 states with transportation, storage, terminal, water, gathering and processing assets that serve some of the nation's most prolific crude oil and natural gas basins. Sponsor Enagas is a Spanish energy company. GIC, formerly known as Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, is a sovereign wealth fund established by the Government of Singapore in 1981 to manage Singapore's foreign reserves. NPS is a public pension fund in South Korea. NPS is the third largest in the world with $600 billion in assets, and is the largest investor in South Korea. USS is the corporate trustee of one of the largest private sector pension funds in the UK. The Sponsors currently hold approximately 44 percent of the total Class A and Class B shares of the Company. On December 16, 2019, the Board of Directors of Tallgrass Energy, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), caused the Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Tallgrass Energy GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of the Partnership ("TGE GP"); Prairie Private Acquiror LP; and Prairie Merger Sub LLC. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Tallgrass' Class A stockholders will receive $22.45 in cash for each share of Tallgrass Class A common stock they own. On January 21, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Partnership's financial projections; fails to disclose the August 6, 2019 financial projections; and fails to disclose the nature of the shareholder communications regarding the Proposed Transaction received by Tallgrass between September and December 2019. The Plaintiff contends that the omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available in the Proxy Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, 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 THERMON GROUP: Faces Class Suit in Quebec of THS Heating Elements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company has received service of process in a class action application in the Province of Quebec, Canada related to certain heating elements previously manufactured by Thermon Heating Systems, Inc. (THS) and incorporated into portable construction heaters sold by certain manufacturers. The Company received service of process in January 2020. The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the claim. The Company continues to evaluate the facts and circumstances of this claim; however, due to the current uncertainty of the basis for the claim, the Company is unable to establish an amount of an accrual for this claim at this time. Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal solutions for process industries. The Company is a global leader and one of the few thermal solutions providers with a global footprint and a full suite of products (heating cables, tubing bundles and control systems) and services (design optimization, engineering, installation and maintenance services) required to deliver comprehensive solutions to complex projects. TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Suit Over Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Strougo, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO TRAMUTO, and ADAM C. HOLLAND, Case No. 3:20-cv-0016 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages from the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws relating to the recent disclosure of the operational challenges faced by Tivity's Nutrition segment following the acquisition of Nutrisystem, Inc. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Tivity securities between March 8, 2019, and February 19, 2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In December 2018, Tivity announced that it would acquire Nutrisystem, Inc., a provider of weight management products and services. On March 8, 2019, Tivity announced the completion of the Nutrisystem Acquisition for approximately $1.3 billion in cash and stock. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) following the Nutrisystem Acquisition, Tivity's Nutrition segment faced significant operational challenges; (ii) the foregoing would foreseeably have a significant impact on Tivity's revenues; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 19, 2020, Tivity issued a press release announcing the Company's financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2019. Tivity disclosed, inter alia, that its "Nutrition segment had a disappointing end to 2019," which included "a non-cash impairment charge of $(377.1) million," contributing to a net loss for the Company of $272.8 million in the fourth quarter. Concurrently, Tivity announced the resignation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer. Discussing the Company's financial results on an earnings call, the Company's interim CEO, Robert Greczyn, stated that "admittedly, the nutrition business has not worked out as well as planned since the completion of the Nutrisystem Acquisition in March 2019." On this news, Tivity's stock price fell $10.43 per share, or 45.49%, to close at $12.50 per share on February 20, 2020. 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 Tivity securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Tivity provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The Company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES P. O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: 615.248.2828 Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Gustavo F. Bruckner, 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 gfbruckner@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 TYLER MEMORY: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Hawkins, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYLER MEMORY CARE PROPERTIES, LLC DBA OAK HILLS TERRACE MEMORY CARE, Case No. 6:20-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff and the putative class members worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, while they were working for the Defendant, says the complaint. Plaintiff Hawkins works exclusively for Tyler Memory Care as a med tech from May 13, 2019, to present. Tyler Memory Care is a company offering residential memory care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone: 903-596-7100 Facsimile: 469-533-1618 UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company has reached an agreement to resolve the claims of direct purchasers of propane cylinders. Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Missouri District Court. As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings, including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District Court. The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue those claims. On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the District of Columbia. On October 2, 2019, the Company reached an agreement to resolve the claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs, subject to court approval. UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy products and related services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through four segments: AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay JSA Benefits Under ERISA, Brown Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Brown, Ronnie Suveg, and Joseph Bobertz on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., the Administrative Committee of the UPS Retirement Plan, the Administrative Committee of the UPS Pension Plan, and John/Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-00460-MLB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay benefits in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity to participants and beneficiaries receiving a joint and survivor annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. By not offering JSAs that are actuarially equivalent to the single life annuities that participants earn under the UPS Retirement Plan (Retirement Plan) and the UPS Pension Plan (Pension Plan), the Defendants are causing retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA, says the complaint. UPS is one of the largest employers in the United States and sponsors several defined benefit pension plans for its employees. Under the Plans, participants earn retirement benefits in the form of a single life annuity (SLA), or a monthly payment for the rest of their lives when they retire. Participants in the Plans may choose to receive their benefits in forms other than an SLA, including a JSA, which provides an annuity during the participant's life and then a percentage of that amount to the participant's beneficiary after the participant's death (available in 50%, 75%, or 100% amounts). United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery and supply chain management company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Worley, Esq. James M. Evangelista, Esq. Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com jim@ewlawllc.com kristi@ewlawllc.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. Alexandra S. Serber, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 fax E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com UNITED STATES: Texas Northern Dist. Dismisses w/o Prejudice Valle ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, RENE FLORES VALLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2254-L (N.D. Tex.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed Sept. 26, 2019. On Oct. 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs challenge and seek judicial review of the policy of the Department of Homeland Security Policy that it will no longer produce detained immigrants to immigration court to attend their removal proceedings in person. Instead, removal proceedings for detained immigrants would be conducted exclusively over video teleconference ("VTC"). The Magistrate Judge determined that the court does not have jurisdiction over this action because the Plaintiffs seek judicial review of "part of the process by which removability is determined," and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(b)(9), such judicial review is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. The Magistrate Judge further determined that the Plaintiffs' challenge to the exclusive use of VTC in removal proceedings remains available under Section 1252(b)(9)'s channeling rule. On Oct. 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Objections to Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. In their Objections, the Plaintiffs' main contention is that the Magistrate Judge mischaracterized the agency action as an action that arises from their removal proceedings where their challenge to the DHS Policy is actually independent of, and collateral to their removal proceedings. Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that their challenge is beyond the scope of claims barred under Secton 1252(b)(9), and due to their inability to raise their claim efficaciously within the administrative proceedings, their claim is exempt from the exhaustion requirement under Section 1252(d)(1). Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the Court is the appropriate forum to challenge the DHS Policy. On Nov. 5, 2019, the Defendants filed their response to the Plaintiffs' Objections and asserted that the Magistrate Judge's Report was correct in the determination that the action arises from removal proceedings, and, thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action. Specifically, they assert that Congress has established a judicial review framework for removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(5) & (b)(9), which permits the Plaintiffs to challenge the use of VTC by filing a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals once the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") issues a final order. They further assert that the Fifth Circuit has considered the use of VTC in removal proceedings in the context of petitions for review of decisions of the BIA. Thus, according to the Defendants, the Court should accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the action because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the court has jurisdiction over their claims. Judge Lindsay determines that the action arises from removal proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Lindsay overrules the Plaintiff's objection that the Magistrate Judge mischaracterized the action as one "arising from" removal proceedings. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, the Magistrate Judge did not misinterpret the phrase "arising from" differently in Sections 1252(b)(9) and (g). Instead, the Court determines that he properly applied the teachings in Jennings by reasonably interpreting "arising from" in Section 1252(b)(9) to include an action taken or proceeding in which a Plaintiff (1) seeks review of an order of removal; (2) challenges a decision to detain or remove the plaintiff; or (3) challenges any part of the process by which the Plaintiff's removability will be determined. Judge Lindsay arrives at the same conclusion expressed by the Magistrate Judge. Judge Lindsay also determines that the Plaintiffs' argument that Section 1252(b)(9) does not foreclose judicial review of claims that cannot be raised efficaciously within the administrative proceedings already available is misplaced, and, accordingly, overrules the objection. Judge Lindsay finds that the Plaintiffs' unwillingness to follow the statutory scheme and designated administrative process is an insufficient basis to circumvent the system in place. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. To the extent they rely on the Act to confer subject matter jurisdiction in the Court, such reliance is misplaced. Judge Lindsay holds that is well settled that Section 2201 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court where none otherwise exists. Judge Lindsay has determined that no other basis for jurisdiction in the Court exists, and, thus, the Plaintiffs cannot establish jurisdiction on the sole basis of Section 2201. Having reviewed the record in the case, the Report, and applicable law, and, having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which objections were made, Judge Lindsay determines that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and accepts them as those of the Court as supplemented by his Opinion. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of Judge Lindsay's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum Order & Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Qb9cNn from Leagle.com. Rene Flores Valle & Luis Alberto Tiscareno, Plaintiffs, represented by John Michael Bray -- john@oblawfirm.com -- The Law Office of John M. Bray, PLLC. Oludayo Oluwapelumi Okunowo, ELL & LCM, Individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christy Meshel White -- cmw@meshellawgroup.com -- Meshel Law Group, PLLC. US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, US Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in official capacity, Matthew T Albence, Acting director of ICE, in official capacity, William P Barr, US Attorney General, in official capacity, James McHenry, Director of EOIR, in official capacity & Simona Flores, Director of Dallas Field Office of ICE, in official capacity, Defendants, represented by Brian Walters Stoltz, U.S. Attorney's Office. VCI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Olivas Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VCI CONSTRUCTION, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Olivas, Tanner Young, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney's General Act v. VCI CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, Case No. BCV-20-100512 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 21, 2020). The case type is stated as "Other Employment--Civil Unlimited". VCI Construction is a full service contractor serving construction and engineering need for telecom, wireless and utility markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ. VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Mercedes Suros, and all others similarly situated v. VERTILUX LIMITED, VERTILUX MANAGEMENT, INC., JOSE GARCIA and BERNARDO MENDEZ, Case No. 2019-037833-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-20781-BB to the proceeding. The civil action purports to arise under federal law, since the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto Naranjo, Esq. AN LAW FIRM, P.A. 7900 Oak Lane #400 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Phone: 305-942-8070 Email: AN@ANlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jose I. Leon, Esq GORDON & REES 100 SE Second Street, Suite 3900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-428-5322 Facsimile: 877-644-6209 Email: jleon@gordonrees.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Faces Mabry FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Shayla Mabry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00466-NYW (D. Colo., Feb. 21, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wakefield & Associates Inc. was founded in 1982. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com WECOMPETE INC: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WEISBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WECOMPETE INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01026 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff received in March 2019 unsolicited text message from the Defendants on his cellular telephone, number ending in -7924. The Plaintiff was never a customer of the Defendants' and never provided his cellular telephone number to the Defendants for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendants never received the Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages, says the complaint. WeCompete offers multiple loan option for small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WEST 4TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Santos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Felix Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEST 4TH STREET REST. CORP., d/b/a WASHINGTON SQUARE DINER, Case No. 7:20-cv-01664 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover damages arising from the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked for 54 hours or more per week during his employment by the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in October 2018 until November 2019. WEST 4TH STREET REST. CORP., d/b/a WASHINGTON SQUARE DINER, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Stewart TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTGATE RESORTS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01083 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning Nov. 2019, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6357, in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services. According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place their calls to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit their services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did also not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS, says the complaint. Westgate Resorts is an American timeshare resort company founded by David A. Siegel in 1982. The Company first expanded from Central Florida to Miami and Daytona Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WESTPAC BANKING: Clients Fear Setback in Insurance Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Chung, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Westpac clients who were ripped off with excessive life insurance premiums fear they may never get their money back after a shock High Court ruling threw a spanner in the works of their legal case. The class action, which dates all the way back to 2017 in the quaint pre-Royal Commission days, alleges that Westpac charged its own customers more for identical policies they could have purchased more cheaply from independent financial advisers. It also alleged that Westpac financial advisers, including those at subsidiaries St George Bank, Bank of Melbourne, BankSA and BT Advice, did not offer the best policies from other insurers to customers, instead pushing Westpac Life products. Shine Lawyers, which is running the case, estimates there are some 88,000 affected customers dating back to February 2011, with a potential $100 million in refunds owed. "I feel that I was cheated and duped, basically so Westpac could have a quick cash-grab," said lead plaintiff Greg Lenthall. Mr. Lenthall, 60, was on a low income working as a cook in 2012 when he was signed up for a life insurance policy by an adviser at his local Westpac branch. He says he believed the adviser would give him a "good deal" and that he put "a lot of faith in the local bank branch to give the best policy and best advice". The premiums ultimately worked out to nearly one third of his monthly income. "It was approximately $400 a month," he said. "I was on about $720 a fortnight at the time." Working long hours, Mr Lenthall didn't "scrutinise everything fortnightly or monthly" and wound up with a "shock at the end of the year when you realise you've been charged thousands of dollars in fees". "I think it possibly would have been considerably less (if I had searched around) for different life insurance brokers," he said. "I would have got a much better deal." Townsville woman Deborah Carter, 53, was paying nearly $1000 a month for two policies -- TPD and income protection -- until she cancelled when she sold her business in 2015. Unaware that there were two policy numbers, it "took about a year" for her to realise Westpac was still taking $318 a month out of her account for income protection. The wildlife rescue worker said she only paid the "hefty premiums" because she had assumed the Westpac financial adviser was "looking after me". "I didn't go there looking for the policy, they suggested it," she said. "I'd gone to talk about my mortgage. I didn't shop around because they were my bank, I had all my loans with them. I mean, you're meant to be able to trust your bank, especially if you've got the bulk of your mortgages and payments with them. Aren't they the people who should be looking out for you?" In December, the High Court delivered a major blow to the Westpac case -- and the broader class actions industry -- by overturning a rule that allowed funders of class actions to collect a share from everyone affected. The High Court ruling on so-called "common fund orders" means law firms have to go back to the old-fashioned way of doing things before 2016, searching out and signing up potential affected clients to take part before commencing the class action. Common fund orders effectively made it easier for class actions to go ahead, because it gave the litigation funders certainty that they would get their cut from any payment resulting from the claim, even though there is no direct contract between the customer and the funder. Litigation funder JustKapital is "considering the financial viability of continuing to fund this case as it is concerned that, given the High Court's decision, it will not be able to recover the substantial costs it has already incurred and earn a return", Shine Lawyers informed its clients last month. "Following the decision, we said there's the possibility the case might not be capable of being progressed unless we can get people to sign up with you," said Shine Lawyers head of class actions Jan Saddler. Ms. Saddler said she didn't want to "put a number on it . . . but the idea is to get as many people as possible". "As the lead applicant, Greg is really wanting to rally the other 88,000 people like him," she said. Mr. Lenthall said he hopes enough Westpac customers will come forward so the class action can go ahead. "That would end up putting some money back in my pocket," he said. Ms. Carter isn't looking for a "big payout", just a reimbursement of the several thousand dollars she mistakenly paid, and which Westpac refused to refund her. "They're getting away with blue murder," she said. [GN] WW NORTH AMERICA: Newman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Cindy Newman, an individual, individually, on behalf of the general public, and all others similarly situated v. WW NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02332, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01770 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) failure to pay compensation for all hours worked and minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) derivative waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) violation of the California Business and Professions code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com samuel.sadeghi@morganlewis.com YOUNG MEN'S: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Brown Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN BROWN, individually, and on behalf of other members 0f the general public similarly situated v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV362508 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods, and to pay overtime and minimum wages. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and class members were entitled to meal periods in accordance with the Labor Code or payment of one additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not provided with timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods. The Plaintiff is an hourly paid, non-exempt Lifeguard from 2014 to November 2019. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in San Jose and Cupertino, California. Founded in 1867, the Defendants operate a youth organization in Silicon Valley, with ten health and wellness facilities throughout Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly DeSario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 --------------------------------------------------- Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th. Sponsorship opportunities are currently available. Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics. For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at colin@beardgroup.com Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo ********* 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 ***