/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 54 Headlines AIDES AT HOME: Sanguino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AIR LINE PILOTS: Popp Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ALANIC INTERNATIONAL: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA ALDI INC: Sedory Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data AMERICAN AIRLINES: Scanlan Wants Military Leave Suit Certified ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Pension Fund Sues over 8% Drop in Share Price ARMCON CORPORATION: Faces Capela FDCPA Suit in C.D. California BATON ROUGE HOTELIERS: Watkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BIG TOP: Settlement Reached in Pizano Class Suit BON-TON HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of 5 Walmart Awards Upheld CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Approves Settlement in Villegas Suit CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses Lepkowski Case with Prejudice CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Mislabels Vanilla Herbal Tea, Spitzer Says CENTURION MEDICAL: Kinser Suit Transferred to New Mexico CF ARCIS IX: Chess Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California CHELSEA INC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York CIGNA HEALTH: Negron Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA & RICO Classes CLARK COUNTY, KY: Jones Files Motion for Discretionary Review CODILIS & MOODY: Class Cert. Proceedings in Lohrke Suit Stayed CODILIS & MOODY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Lohrke Suit COTTON COMMERCIAL: Court Shelves Motion to Certify Class DASUYA ENTERPRISES: Smith FLSA Suit Class Conditionally Certified DEL MAR, CA: Hedayatzadeh Wants Parking Ticket Suit Certified DENTAL RESOURCES: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida DR. REDDY'S: Court Terminates Critchley Class Certification Bid ELITE SPORTSWEAR: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Court Remands Evans Suit to Texas State Court FAIR CAPITAL: Cymonisse Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation FBCS INC: Bloom Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Withdrawal Fees GATESTONE & CO: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Meco Suit GENERAL CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rivera Says GIGGLE HOLDING: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Garage Door Technicians Class Certified HARBOR FREIGHT: Kaupelis Seeks to Certify Class of Chainsaw Buyers HAYT HAYT: Faces Cohnen FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey HERBALIFE LTD: Lavigne Class Certification Bid under Advisement HEXCEL CORPORATION: Schwartz Suit Challenges Merger With Woodward HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Separated Workers' Wages, Sandoval Says HP INC: Electrical Workers Fund Sues over 10% Drop in Share Price ICHIBAN GRP: Court Certifies Portion of FLSA Collective Action IDOC: Tyree et al. Seek to Certify Class of MSR Parolees JFC INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Labels Hapi Wasabi Peas, Yothers Says KPOP STAR HAIR: Li Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL L18 HOLDINGS: Faces Martinez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York LUCKY NEPHEW: Parris Class Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA and NYLL LVNV FUNDING: Norton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass MCDONALD'S CORP: Misrepresents Vanilla Ice Cream, Webber Alleges MDL 2221: All Non-Amex Class Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed MDL 2543: Reconsideration Bid on Summary Judgment Denied in GM Suit MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Leslie Suit Over Toxic EtO Emissions MEL DAWSON INC: Faces Duval Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA MIDLAND CREDIT: Vaknin Files FCDPA Suit in California MISSOURI: Class Settlement in M.B. Case Gets Final Approval MOM365 INC: Class Settlement in Hoover Suit Gets Final Approval MONSTER BEVERAGE: Mislabels Vanilla Energy Drink, Budhani Alleges MORTGAGE LENDERS: Charbonneau Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Certification of Class Settlement Sought NEW OOKI SUSHI: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Tian Suit Claims OLERO INC: Certification of Rule 23 Classes Sought in Bruger Suit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Stirling Action PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Settlement in Reyes Suit Wins Initial OK PAYCOR INC: Johns Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action PLYMOUTH ROCK: Motion to Reconsider in MSP Recovery Suit Denied PRIORITY IMPORTS: Court Dismisses Galloway Suit Without Prejudice RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Scipio FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York RADIUS GLOBAL: Saad Sues in N.D. Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation RICHLINE GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ROTHMAN EVANS: Skellington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York RUTTER'S HOLDINGS: Palermo Sues Over Compromised Card Information SEAFOLLY US: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act SHEPLERS INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York SIGMA SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data SIMONMEND IMAGING: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of ADA SOUTHWORTH COMPANY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Matthews" SPECTRANETICS CORP: Louangamath Seeks to Certify Settlement Class THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Payne Claims THURSTYHUFF INC: Pravazabojovnik Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages TIME AFTER TIME: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act TIME OUT MARKET: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site TOTAL CARD: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in Meco Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Turner et al. Sue Over Brake Defect TRANSCANADA USA: Harbaum Seeks to Certify Class of Inspectors TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Bid for Class Certification Granted UNITED HEALTHCARE: Underpays Insurance Agents, Brenner Claims UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Stephens Suit Transferred to E.D. Wash. UNITED STATES: Bid to Compel Deposition in Ingham Suit Granted UNITED STATES: Calif. CBP Detainees Class in Doe Suit Certified UNITED STATES: Classwide Prelim. Injunction in Doe Suit Reaffirmed VERRA MOBILITY: Herrera Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona VESELKA ENTERPRISES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site VI-JON INC: David Files Suit in Southern District of California WARNER MUSIC: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class in Williams Suit WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Court Clarifies Class Definition in Terry Suit WASTE MANAGEMENT: Consolidation of FAFE Case W/ D'Amico Case Denied WELLS FARGO: Lanning Seeks Unpaid Wages for Mortgage Consultants WENDY'S INT'L: Court Dismisses Davis ADA Class Action WILL COUNTY, IL: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Dunn Suit WYOMING VALLEY: Court Approves $800K Deal in Potoski FLSA Lawsuit ZAK DESIGNS: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act ********* AIDES AT HOME: Sanguino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Armida Sanguino, on behalf of herself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. AIDES AT HOME, INC. and ROSLYN WILKINS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01255 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The complaint also arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage compensation, to pay timely wages, to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period, and to provide a wage notice upon the Plaintiff's hiring in her native language. The Plaintiff asserts that she was regularly required to work, and did in fact work, far more than forty hours per workweek during many pay periods but the Defendants did not accurately record the number of hours she worked. The Plaintiff adds that she also regularly worked many additional hours without being paid any compensation both during her first forty hours of work per week and for hours worked in excess of forty during many workweeks. The Plaintiff commenced her employment in 2013 as a home health aide, a position that she held until September 2018. The Defendants are a company and its owner that provide home health care services to elderly and disabled clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 AIR LINE PILOTS: Popp Seeks to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTIAN POPP v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 0:19-cv-61298-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all former (employed at some point within the last six months of the filing of this complaint), current, and future nonmember employees within the meaning of Railway Labor Act (RLA) who are, have been, or will be represented by ALPA and are, have been, or will be subject to ALPA's forced fees requirements"; 2. appointing Mr. Popp as class representative; 3. appointing his counsel as class counsel. This lawsuit challenges the standard, uniform policy that Defendant Air Line Pilots Association, International has systematically implemented and applied to all represented nonmember employees, including Popp, who are required to pay fees to ALPA as a condition of employment according to the RLA. The complaint seeks monetary relief to redress the ways that ALPA violated the RLA, its First Amendment, and breached the duty of fair representation. ALPA is the largest pilot union in the world, representing more than 63,000 pilots from 35 U.S. and Canadian airlines.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class are: Jeffrey D. Jennings, Esq. Milton L. Chappell, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 E-mail: jdj@nrtw.org mlc@nrtw.org - and - Mark J. Beutler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A One Datran Center, Suite 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 487-0942 Facsimile: (786) 513-4651 E-mail: mjb@mjbpa.com ALANIC INTERNATIONAL: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Alanic International Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alanic International Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02202 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Alanic International Corporation is a Clothes and fabric manufacturer in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ALDI INC: Sedory Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Sedory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALDI INC., Case No. 2020CH02768 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to put a stop to the unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks and key access systems in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, the Defendant disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant have violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand geometry were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class's hand geometry, as required by the BIPA; nor Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain hand geometry, as required by the BIPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois. Aldi is a discount grocery store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Scanlan Wants Military Leave Suit Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES P. SCANLAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04040-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying Count I of the amended complaint and second amended complaint on behalf of the Profit Sharing Class and appointing Plaintiff James P. Scanlan as its class representative pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). The Profit Sharing Class consists of: "current and former employees of American Airlines, Inc., Envoy Air, Inc., Piedmont Airlines, Inc., and PSA Airlines, Inc. who, from January 1, 2016 through the date of judgment in this action, (1) are or were participants in the American Airlines Group Inc. Global Profit Sharing Plan (the "Profit Sharing Plan"), and (2) while participants in the Profit Sharing Plan are or were either employed inside the United States or are or were a citizen, national or permanent resident alien of the United States employed in a foreign country, and (3) after becoming a participant in the Plan took a period of military leave during a Plan Year in which they were eligible to receive an award under the Profit Sharing Plan (or who would have been eligible to receive an award under the Plan if earnings associated with qualified military leave had been credited); and (4) whose profit sharing award under the Profit Sharing Plan did not include credit imputed earnings for periods of military leave"; 2. certifying Count II of the second amended complaint on behalf of the American Pilot Profit Sharing Subclass and appointing Plaintiff Scanlan as its class representative pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4): "all members of the Profit Sharing Class who, from January 1, 2016 through the date of judgment in this action are or were eligible to participate in the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan for Pilots and are or were subject to taxation in the United States"; 3. certifying Count III of the amended complaint and second amended complaint on behalf of the Paid Leave Class and appointing Plaintiff Scanlan as its class representative pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4); "current and former employees of American Airlines, Inc. who took short term military leave from their employment with American Airlines, Inc. at any time from January 1, 2013 through the date of judgment in this action and during that leave were not paid the amount equal to what they would have earned had they continued to work their ordinary work schedules for American Airlines, Inc."; and 4. appointing R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton, LLP, as Lead Class Counsel, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Outten & Golden LLP, Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, and the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard LLC as additional class counsel, and Adam Garner of the Garner Firm Ltd. as Liaison Class Counsel. Excluded from both the Paid Leave Class and the Profit Sharing Class are the following persons: (a) any members of the Committee which was responsible for administering the Plan, (b) all former or current employees who previously reached settlements with or judgments against American Airlines Group, Inc. in their individual USERRA actions concerning inadequate profit sharing awards that were based on earnings that did not take into account imputed income for periods of short-term military leave and/or the failure to pay compensation to employees during their short term military leave; and (c) any employees who are covered by the 2005 Agreement between US Airways, Inc. and the Communication Workers of America representing Passenger Service Employees, the Passenger Service Agreement between American Airlines, Inc. and CWA-IBT Association representing Passenger Service Employees effective December 1, 2015, the Agreement between US Airways, Inc. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers representing Fleet Service Employees dated May 8, 2008, the Fleet Service Agreement between US Airways, Inc. and the Fleet Service Employees as represented by the International Association of Machinists and Electrical Workers dated July 18, 2014, or the Agreement between US Airways, Inc. and the International Association of Machinists and Electrical Workers representing Mechanical Employees. This lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) against the Defendants. American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Colin M. Downes, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street NW Washington D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com colin@blockesq.com - and - Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1900 L St., NW, Ste. 312 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com - and - Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 E-mail: hcolechu@outtengolden.com - and - Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC 905 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 404 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 E-mail:matt@crottyandson.com - and - Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC 1020 N. Washington St. Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (425) 239-7290 Facsimile: (509) 326-2932 E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net - and - Adam Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM LTD. 1515 Market St. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Pension Fund Sues over 8% Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGIA FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; R.A. WALKER; ROBERT G. GWIN; and ROBERT P. DANIELS, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00576 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 19, 2020) is a securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Anadarko common stock between February 20, 2015, and May 2, 2017, inclusive. In 2009, Anadarko discovered the "Shenandoah" oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. The Company spent the following eight years appraising the field. During that time, including throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made repeated positive representations about the prospects and value of the Shenandoah assets. On May 2, 2017, however, Anadarko reported quarterly financial results in which it recorded a $467 million impairment charge and expensed $435 million in suspended exploratory well costs related to the Shenandoah project. Critically, the Company admitted that it was suspending the appraisal process due to poor results. On this news, the price of Anadarko common stock fell $4.33 per share, or approximately 8%, from a close of $56.28 per share on May 2, 2017, to close at $51.95 per share on May 3, 2017. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation operates as an oil and gas exploration company. The Company acquires, explores, develops, produces, and markets oil and natural gas. Anadarko Petroleum serves customers globally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. John S. "Jack" Edwards, Jr., Esq. AJAMIE LLP 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-1600 Facsimile: (713) 860-1699 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com jedwards@ajamie.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Karissa J. Sauder, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com jrdavidson@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com ksauder@ktmc.com ARMCON CORPORATION: Faces Capela FDCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Armcon Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Renee Capela, Joseph Capela, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Armcon Corporation doing business as: Coachella Valley Collection Service, Law Office of John D. Gallegos, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00458-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARMCON CO., INC. undertakes civil works, architectural finishing works, as well as electrical and electro-mechanical works.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW P. RUNDQUIST 501 West Broadway, Suite A144 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 992-9148 Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com BATON ROUGE HOTELIERS: Watkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Jo Watkins, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals v. BATON ROUGE HOTELIERS, LLC, UNR HOSPITALITY, LLC, and RAJESH PATEL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00127-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., March 6, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff often worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee under the FLSA, she was never paid an overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform front desk work at several hotels owned by the Defendants. The Defendants provide hotel services throughout the greater Baton Rouge area and elsewhere in Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall E. Estes, Esq. Daniel B. Davis, Esq. Vivian Jeansonne, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 850 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com - and - Ted Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TED WILLIAMS 212 Laurel Street Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Phone: ((225) 336-9600 Facsimile: (225) 709-1554 Email: tedwilliams11@bellsouth.net BIG TOP: Settlement Reached in Pizano Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ The parties have reached a settlement of the class action lawsuit styled as Jose Pizano v. Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC d/b/a Big Top Tent & Party Rentals, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11190 (N.D. Ill.). According to the Docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 21, 2020, the Counsel for the Plaintiff has apprised the Court that the parties have reached an agreement and will need time to execute the necessary documents. The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. held that Plaintiff's oral motion to withdraw his renewed motion for class certification and renewed motion for rule to show cause is granted. Both motions are withdrawn without prejudice. Back-up status hearing is set for March 30, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. If a stipulation of dismissal is filed before the next status hearing, the hearing will be canceled, and the case closed. Big Top offers tents of frame and pole type style for events and parties.[CC] BON-TON HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA -------------------------------------------------- The Bon-Ton Holdings, Inc., doing business as: Younkers.com is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Bon-Ton Holdings, Inc., doing business as: Younkers.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02195 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Bon-Ton Holdings Inc. is an American online retailer and former department store chain founded in 1898.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of 5 Walmart Awards Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of Awards to Walmart Affirmed BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Upholds Denial of Review of Awards to Walmart In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v. CLAIMANT ID 100354107, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 18-31115, Consolidated with No. 18-31118, 18-31122, 18-31123, 18-31128 (5th Cir.), Judge Leslie H. Southwick of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of discretionary review of five awards made to Walmart under the Settlement Agreement arising from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire caused the collapse of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Among other effects of that disaster was an enormous release of oil into the Gulf. In time, a Settlement Agreement was negotiated between BP, which was leasing the rig at the time of the disaster, and class-action representatives for those who claimed damage from the disaster. In that agreement were provisions for business economic loss ("BEL") claims. Such claims are initially decided by a Claims Administrator as part of a Court Supervised Settlement Program ("CSSP"). PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PWC") is one of the accounting firms that perform initial analysis of the claims for the Claims Administrator. The current appeal concerns BP's challenge to BEL awards made to Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. The arguments center on the fact that Walmart changed its accounting system in May 2010, the month after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which BP argues resulted in artificially inflated award amounts. The accounting change complicated the review of Walmart's BEL claims, which depend in part on showing expenses both before and after the disaster. In June 2015, Walmart submitted a separate BEL claim to the Claims Administrator for each of Walmart's nine stores along the Gulf Coast. Only five of the claims are at issue. Each of the five claims was the basis for a separate appeal from BP to this court. The five appeals were consolidated for decision by the panel. In April 2017, Walmart submitted supplemental documentation to the Claims Administrator for each claim. This documentation included a notification to the Claims Administrator that Walmart had changed its accounting system. In these submissions, Walmart sought to reconcile the differences between the two accounting systems. The Claims Administrator reviewed Walmart's claims with the assistance of PWC accountants. In July and December 2017, PWC and Walmart exchanged emails discussing the changes in Walmart's accounting system. The Claims Administrator's calculation notes give some indication that Walmart's explanations were considered. In February 2018, the Claims Administrator issued awards totaling just over $17.4 million. BP appealed each of the CSSP's five awards, arguing that Walmart's accounting system change made its profit and loss data for the pre-May 2010 period inconsistent with the same data in the subsequent period. BP identified three accounts that had been treated differently in the pre-May 2010 accounting system than the post-May 2010 accounting system. Specifically, BP noted that "Tires" and "Trailer Parts" were categorized as fixed costs in the pre-May 2010 accounting system, but those two categories did not appear in the post-May 2010 accounting system. A new category, "Trailer Tires," had appeared, though, labeled as a variable cost. According to BP's argument to the Appeal Panels, the result was that, at least for these accounts, Walmart's change in accounting systems caused the pre-disaster period to appear more profitable in comparison to the later period than it really was, thus artificially inflating Walmart's awards. Without stating a position as to whether the three specific accounts were handled appropriately, Walmart in its proposals to the five Appeal Panels agreed to treat all three accounts as variable. Each of the five Appeal Panels selected Walmart's proposal for the final award amount. Regarding BP's claims that Walmart's change in accounting system skewed the calculations, the Appeal Panels addressed the matter to varying degrees. One Appeal Panel expressly concluded that the CSSP adequately addressed the changes, and all the Appeal Panels concluded that the amount in question BP had identified was minimal and that Walmart's treatment of the three identified expense accounts as variable across time periods was adequate. After the variable adjustment in addition to an agreed-upon downward adjustment not relevant, the final total award amount was just over $15 million. The district court later denied BP's request for discretionary review. The appeal followed. BP argues that the district court's refusal to review these awards should be reversed because that the court's denial of review failed both parts of the Fifth Circuit'sreview standard: the Appeal Panels contradicted or misapplied the Settlement Agreement, and there is a split in Appeal Panels on how to address a change in accounting systems when calculating compensation. Judge Southwick holds that BP is correct that Walmart controlled the information it provided to the Claims Administrator and Appeal Panels. BP argues this information should have been more exhaustive. Nevertheless, BP has not shown that the Claims Administrator or any Appeal Panel contradicted or misapplied the Settlement Agreement, or that there was a clear potential for such contradiction or misapplication. As far as the record shows, the Claims Administrator conducted a searching review of the financial statements Walmart provided from both its old and new accounting system, and the PWC accountants brought specific clarification questions to Walmart regarding the changes. Walmart responded to the satisfaction of the Claims Administrator. The Appeal Panels considered the parties' positions and concluded that BP had not shown sufficient evidence to warrant remand to the Claims Administrator and that the effect of any identified discrepancy was minimal. There was not a showing of a misapplication or contradiction of the Settlement Agreement requiring the district court's review. The Fifth Circuit is unconvinced by BP's pleas for more information. Before the Fifth Circuit is an exercise of judgment, not only by the district court but also by Appeal Panels and the Claims Administrator in deciding when there is enough evidence under the terms of the Settlement Agreement to make an award. In the single Appeal Panel decision that has created BP's purported split, there was extensive evidence that there had been misclassifications that significantly altered the award amount and ordered remand to address the changes. BP is unsatisfied with the amount of information Walmart provided to the Claims Administrator and how extensively the Claims Administrator and its accountants investigated the accounting system change. The Fifth Circuit sees it as a challenge to the Appeal Panels' decisions that simply raises the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant's case. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit holds that the district court's denial of a request for discretionary review of such a decision is not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit upholds the district court's ruling. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Jan. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/fwwGih from Leagle.com. Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Neal Manne -- nmanne@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Neal Manne, for Objecting Party-Appellee. James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. J. Hoke Peacock, III -- tpeacock@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for Objecting Party-Appellee. Joseph Samuel Grinstein -- jgrinstein@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for Objecting Party-Appellee. Devin Chase Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr., for Requesting Party-Appellant. Aaron Lloyd Nielson -- aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. George W. Hicks, Jr. -- george.hicks@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. David Weiner -- dweiner@wmllp.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Christian D. Sheehan -- christian.sheehan@arnoldporter.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Approves Settlement in Villegas Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JURTREAU VILLEGAS, PATRICK SCHIANO and WILLIAM GILBERT GARVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION, CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, CSC HOLDINGS, LLC, ALTICE USA, INC., and ALTICE TECHNICAL SERVICES US CORP., Case No. 17-CIV-5824-DLI-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vera M. Scanlon entered an order: 1. approving the parties' settlement; 2. giving payment process for the approximately 99% of the class. Only one Class Member, Shaun Maxwell, submitted a request for exclusion from the Settlement by submitting an Opt-Out Statement. As such, approximately 99% of the Class Members are participating in the Settlement; 3. granting Plaintiffs' counsels' motion for attorneys' fees and awarding class counsel's firm a total of $200,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, or 25% of the gross settlement amount; 4. awarding service payments of $10,000 and $5,000 to William Gilbert Garvin and Dion Pemberton, respectively, totaling $15,000, from the Gross Settlement Amount. 5. approving up to $15,000 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount for costs and expenses, including but not limited to the claims administration fees for the services provided in the Settlement Agreement; and 6. dismissing the action on the merits, with prejudice. All Rule 23 Class Members, except Shaun Maxwell, who requested to be excluded, hereby are permanently barred from prosecuting against the Released Parties any and all Released State Law Claims. Cablevision Systems was an American cable television company with systems serving areas surrounding New York City.[CC] CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses Lepkowski Case with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed with prejudice the case, RACHEL LEPKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04598-YGR, (N.D. Cal.). The class action complaint, initially filed in August 2019, concerns all CamelBak eddy water bottles, and alleges violations of various consumer protection laws as to the bottles' spill-proof claims. The lawsuit was amended in October 2019. Under the lawsuit, Lepkowski brought nine claims including: (i) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (ii) breach of express warranty (iii) breach of the warranty of merchantability (iv) unjust enrichment (v) violation of California's Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)(vi) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (vii) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) (viii) negligent misrepresentation and (ix) fraud. In December 2019, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended class action complaint. The Court concluded that Lepkowski lacks standing to bring claims for monetary and injunctive relief, and that CamelBak's motion to dismiss is appropriately granted. A full-text copy of the Court's December 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sfctqlj from Leagle.com In December 2019 order, the Court stated that the it did "not believe that amendment to the complaint is possible," but that, "in light of plaintiff's request [ made at the motion hearing,] leave to amend is GRANTED as long as such amendment can be made consistent with Rule 11." The Court provided that "[t]o the extent plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the same shall be filed no later than January 17, 2020." A "[f]ailure to do so will result in a sua sponte dismissal with prejudice effective January 21, 2020." Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint with the Court in the action. Accordingly, in light of the Court's prior order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Rogers dismissed the matter with prejudice in a January 23, 2020 Order available at https://tinyurl.com/uxh35h6 from Leagle.com Rachel Lepkowski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Neal J. Deckant - ndeckant@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Brittany Skye Scott - bscott@bursor.com - Bursor Fisher, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher - ltfisher@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Scott Bursor - scott@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A. CamelBak Products, LLC & CamelBak International, LLC, Defendants, represented by Robert Alan Roth - robert.roth@calapplaw.com - Reed Smith LLP, Todd Owen Maiden -tmaiden@reedsmith.com - Reed Smith LLP & Terence N. Hawley -thawley@reedsmith.com - Reed Smith LLP. CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Mislabels Vanilla Herbal Tea, Spitzer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrianna Spitzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02000 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their herbal tea characterized by vanilla under their Celestial Seasonings brand. The relevant front label representations include the brand, "Herbal Tea," "Caffeine Free," "Sleepytime," and "Vanilla" and a picture of the vanilla flower. The Product purports to be a herbal tea characterized by vanilla, which is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains non-vanilla flavors, which imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean, yet these flavors are not disclosed to consumers as required and expected. The Plaintiff contends that consumers are misled because the Product has less vanilla than the front label suggest, derives its vanilla taste from other non-vanilla flavors and should be labeled "artificially flavored" based on having a "french vanilla" flavor with no eggs. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers. The Defendant has sold more of the Products and at higher prices per unit than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The amount and proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Products because consumers are willing to pay more for such Products. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less for it. The Product contains other representations which are misleading and deceptive, says the complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $3.89 per 1.1 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption. Celestial Seasonings, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells bags of herbal tea characterized by vanilla under their Celestial Seasonings brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com CENTURION MEDICAL: Kinser Suit Transferred to New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gabriel P Kinser, Plaintiff v. Centurion Medical Group, Metropolitan Detention Center and They City of Albuquerque and all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 20CV00969, was transferred from the Second Judicial District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on March 11, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00222-WJ-SMV. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights. Centurion Medical Group is the largest auction house for used medical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant Metropolitan Detention Center is represented by: Brandon Huss, Esq. New Mexico Association of Counties 444 Galisteo St Santa Fe, NM 87501 Tel: (505) 820-8116 Fax: (505) 338-1173 Email: bhuss@nmcounties.org - and - Mark L. Drebing, Esq. New Mexico Association of Counties 111 Lomas Blvd NW, Suite 424 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Tel: (505) 820-8116 Email: mdrebing@nmcounties.org CF ARCIS IX: Chess Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Chess, David Orenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CF Arcis IX LLC, Case No. RG20050237, was removed from the California Superior Court for County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 5, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01625-LB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. CF Arcis IX LLC is a company located in United States of America. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jaikaran Singh, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 847-6700 Email: jsingh@foley.com CHELSEA INC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------- Chelsea, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chelsea, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02186 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Chelsea Inc is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes the operation of nonclassifiable establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CIGNA HEALTH: Negron Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA & RICO Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KIMBERLY A. NEGRON, DANIEL PERRY, COURTNEY GALLAGHER, NINA CUROL, ROGER CUROL, and BILLY RAY BLOCKER, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and OPTUMRX, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-01702-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying these classes and subclasses pursuant to Rule 23(a) and both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Class: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies and subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plans or policies that provided that a member "may be required to pay a portion of Covered Expenses" and paid a copayment or deductible payment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by-transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed- back" by Cigna"; ERISA Subclass: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies and subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plans or policies that provided that "in no event will the Copayment" "exceed the amount paid by the plan to the Pharmacy" and paid a copayment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by- transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed-back" by Cigna"; State Law Class: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies and not subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plans or policies that provided that a member "may be required to pay a portion of Covered Expenses" and paid a copayment or deductible payment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by- transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed-back" by Cigna"; State Law Subclass: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies and not subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plan that provided that "in no event will the Copayment" "exceed the amount paid by the plan to the Pharmacy" and paid a copayment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by-transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed- back" by Cigna"; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Class: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies, including both plans subject to ERISA and plans not subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plans or policies that provided that a member "may be required to pay a portion of Covered Expenses" and paid a copayment or deductible payment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by-transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed- back" by Cigna"; RICO Subclass: "all individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were enrolled in a health benefit plan issued and/or administered by Defendants or their affiliates or insured under Defendants' or their affiliates' health insurance policies, including both plans subject to ERISA and plans not subject to ERISA, who purchased prescription drugs pursuant to such plans or policies that provided that "in no event will the Copayment" "exceed the amount paid by the plan to the Pharmacy" and paid a copayment for such drugs that was higher than the Pharmacy Charge on a transaction-by- transaction basis, which excess payment above the Pharmacy Charge was "clawed-back" by Cigna." 2. appointing Plaintiffs to serve as Class Representatives for the various Classes; and 3. appointing co-lead Class Counsel The Plaintiffs are participants in health plans administered by Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. They brought this class action against Cigna and its prescription benefits manager OptumRx, Inc., alleging violations of the ERISA and the RICO Act as well as breach of contract. Cigna, a global health service company, offers health, pharmacy, dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare plans to individuals, families, and businesses. OptumRx is a pharmacy care services company.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, 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 craabe@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: 860-882-1681 Facsimile: 860-882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212-223-6444 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com calexander@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: 206- 623-1900 Facsimile: 206-623-3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-341-0400 Facsimile: 612-341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM LLC P.O. Box 904 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: 985-783-6789 Facsimile: 985-783-1333 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 14 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: 516-699-8890 Facsimile: 516-699-8968 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com joseph@sarrafgentile.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238-2434 Telephone: 205-908-4906 Facsimile: 866-747-3905 E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612 596-4097 Facsimile: 612 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmarttila@locklaw.com - and - Brad J. Moore, Esq. STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER 3600 15th Ave W, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-1330 Telephone: 206.448.1777 Facsimile: 206.728.2131 E-mail: Brad@stritmatter.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com Jeremy@wbmllp.com CLARK COUNTY, KY: Jones Files Motion for Discretionary Review ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Jones filed with the Kentucky Supreme Court on March 5, 2020, a motion for discretionary review in the matter styled as David Jones, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellant v. CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY, and FRANK DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, Case No. 2020-SC-000107. The case type is stated as "Discretionary Review (CIVIL): (1I)." Clark County is a county located in the U.S. state of Kentucky. As of the 2010 census, the population was 35,613. The county seat is Winchester.[BN] CODILIS & MOODY: Class Cert. Proceedings in Lohrke Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CLARENCE LOHRKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CODILIS, MOODY, & CIRCELLI, PC, and US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 20-CV-0322 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order on Feb. 28, 2020, granting Plaintiff's motions to stay the class certification motion and for relief from local rules. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent the Defendants from mooting the action, the Plaintiff moved for class certification and to stay the class certification request, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); and Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). The Plaintiff also moved for relief from local rules requiring every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing schedule. Judge Adelman granted the request and stayed the plaintiff's class certification motion for Damasco purposes. No briefing schedule is imposed. Codilis & Moody provides legal services.[CC] CODILIS & MOODY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Lohrke Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CLARENCE LOHRKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CODILIS, MOODY, & CIRCELLI, PC, and US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00322-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com COTTON COMMERCIAL: Court Shelves Motion to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO J. CABRE, et al. v. COTTON COMMERCIAL USA, INC., SUPERIOR STAFFING & PAYROLL SERVICES, VCDP COMPANIES INC., and DANIEL PAZ, in his individual capacity, Case No. 4:19-cv-10163-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Alicia M. Otazo Reyes entered an order on Feb. 28, 2020, deferring a decision on the motion to certify class for a period of 60 days to give the parties an opportunity to attempt to resolve the case. Judge Reyes recommends that the pre-trial deadlines be extended by a comparable period of time. Cotton Commercial was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes cleaning carpets and upholstered furniture at a plant or on customers' premises.[CC] DASUYA ENTERPRISES: Smith FLSA Suit Class Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRYSTAL SMITH, ET AL., v. DASUYA ENTERPRISES LLC, ET AL., SECTION: "J" (1), Civil Action No. 17-17895 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Plaintiffs Smith and Tiffany Earin's Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice. The case is a collective action filed by the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). They commenced the suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to recover allegedly unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages for work they performed for Defendant Dasuya, which owns or operates Subway franchises in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. Dasuya was allegedly founded in 2014 by Defendants Minakshi Pandit and Hanu Kaushal in order for Kaushal and his wife, Defendant Sandal Kaushal, to operate a Subway restaurant on Jefferson Highway. Defendant Rohin Sharma is alleged to be the owner of the franchise agreement for that location and to have been involved in the day-to-day operation of the business along with his wife, Defendant Harpreet Sharma. At some point in 2018, after the lawsuit was filed, Minakshi Pandit and Hanu Saushal were removed as members of Dasuya and Rohin Sharma became the sole member of Dasuya. In July 2018, Rohin Sharma and Minakshi Pandit are alleged to have transferred their interest in Dasuya to Defendants Jasbir Kaur and Narinder Singh, who currently operate the business. The Plaintiffs allege that they and their coworkers were employed by the Defendants as hourly employees and were regularly required to work off the clock hours, for which they were not paid. They further allege that they and their coworkers regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. They claim that the Defendants willfully failed to pay them and other similarly situated employees for every hour worked, thereby reducing their rate of pay to below the federal minimum wage, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 206, and willfully failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 207. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees who worked for the Defendants during the past three years. The Plaintiffs also assert individual claims against the Defendants. Plaintiff Smith brings a retaliation claim for her termination allegedly because she attempted to make a worker's compensation claim. Plaintiff Earin asserts a pregnancy discrimination claim challenging her termination. Finally, both Smith and Earin assert a claim for failure to pay final wages. The Plaintiffs seek to maintain their FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and move the Court to conditionally certify a collective class of Defendants' employees limited to the following: All persons employed by Defendants since December 2016 who were paid on an hourly basis but were required to work off the clock hours for which they were not paid, thereby depriving them of the federal minimum wage and/or were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in their pleadings as well as their attached sworn declarations demonstrate clear violations of the FLSA attributable to the Defendants' policies and practices that applied to all hourly employees. The Defendants oppose conditional certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs are not covered by the FLSA, contending that enterprise coverage does not apply because none of them have had a gross revenue exceeding $500,000 and that individual coverage does not apply because the Plaintiffs were not engaged in interstate commerce. In their reply, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court should not consider merits-based arguments on FLSA coverage at the conditional certification stage, and assert that the Defendants have provided no evidence of their income to demonstrate that enterprise coverage does not apply. Judge Barbier finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have satisfied their lenient burden of showing that there is likely a class of similarly situated employees entitled to receive notice; and (ii) the Defendants have not indicated that they have any objections to the proposed notice, nor have they requested additional time to confer with the Plaintiffs and submit to the Court a joint notice. Accordingly, Judge Barbier finds that the proposed notice is acceptable, as provided in the Order. Accordingly, Judge Barbier granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice. The Court conditionally certified the matter as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Judge Barbier approved the proposed Notice and Opt-In Forms. The Notice will be sent to the following: "All persons employed by Defendants since December 2016 who were paid on an hourly basis but were required to work off the clock hours for which they were not paid, thereby depriving them of the federal minimum wage and/or were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty per week." The Defendants will provide a list of the names, dates of employment, telephone numbers, email addresses, and last known addresses of all current or former employees who may be members of the collective class to counsel for the Plaintiffs. The time period in which the potential opt-in Plaintiffs may opt-in is 120 days. The 120-day opt-in period will begin to run on the date that the Defendants provide a complete list of the names, dates of employment, telephone numbers, email addresses, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs to counsel for the Plaintiffs. All Opt-In Forms must be filed on the record no later than 14 days from the end of the opt-in period. The Court denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/WdF51W from Leagle.com. Crystal Smith, On behalf of herself and all those similarly situated & Tiffany Earin, On behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jody Forester Jackson -- jjackson@jackson-law.net -- Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson -- mjackson@jackson-law.net -- Jackson & Jackson. Dasuya Enterprises, LLC, Minakshi Pandit, Hanu Kaushal, Sandal Kaushal, Rohin Sharma, Harpreet Sharma, Jasbir Kaur & Narinder Singh, Defendants, represented by Rajan Pandit -- rpandit@panditlaw.com -- Pandit Law Firm, LLC, Jessie Braud Callahan -- jcallahan@panditlaw.com -- Pandit Law Firm, LLC & Phillip N. Sanov -- psanov@panditlaw.com -- Pandit Law Firm, pro hac vice. DEL MAR, CA: Hedayatzadeh Wants Parking Ticket Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KAHILA H. HEDAYATZADEH, on behalf of herself and a class of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF DEL MAR; DOES 1-150, inclusive Case No. 3:19-cv-00842-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on April 6, 2020, for an order granting class certification of these proposed classes: Umbrella Class (non-damages): "all persons who had and/or will have a chalk mark placed on one of the tires of a vehicle they owned or operated, by a City of Del Mar employee or agent, without a warrant, to obtain information to justify the issuance of a parking ticket, from May 3, 2017 to the present"; and Damages Subclass: "all persons within the above-named class who paid a parking ticket from May 3, 2017 to the present, as a result of the warrantless chalking of vehicle tires by Defendant." Del Mar is a beach city in San Diego County, California, incorporated on July 15, 1959.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Ramin R. Hariri, Esq. HARIRI LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, Suite 22 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 363-2889 Facsimile: (619) 810-0791 E-mail: ramin@haririlaw.com - and - Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq. Taylor Marks, Esq. KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP 12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 509-1550 Facsimile: (858) 509-1551 E-mail: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com DENTAL RESOURCES: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NEW CONCEPT DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DENTAL RESOURCES SYSTEMS, INC. a/k/a TRUDENTA, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 0:17-cv-61411-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth A. Marra entered an order on March 3, 2020: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all persons within the United States who received a telephone facsimile transmission from Dental Resource Systems, Inc. to said person's telephone facsimile number made through the use of any telephone facsimile machine, and who is not a customer of Dental Resource Systems, Inc., i.e. who is not contained in the "AllCustomers2016" database, between July 2013 and March 2017"; and "all persons within the United States who received a telephone facsimile transmission from Dental Resource Systems, Inc. to said person's telephone facsimile number made through the use of any telephone facsimile machine, who is not a customer of Dental Resource Systems, Inc., i.e. who is not contained in the "AllCustomers2016" database and whose fax number was acquired by Dental Resource Systems, Inc. through purchase of a leads list from either DentalLists.net or MGBS, between July 2013 and March 2017"; 2. denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for class certification as untimely and in violation of applicable page limitations; 3. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's alternative Motion to Strike the Supporting Affidavit of Attorney Adrian Bacon; granting to the extent the Affidavit includes Attorney Bacon's personal evidentiary summaries and interpretations of the evidence; and denying to the extent the Affidavit describes the credentials and litigation experience of proposed class counsel; 4. denying as moot Defendant's alternative motion to strike the expert report of Anya Verkhovskaya on ground the expert was not timely disclosed; 5. denying Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's Reply filed in support of its motion for class certification; and 6. addressing by separate order Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment and motion for spoliation sanctions. The Court said, "without more evidence bearing on the central issue of which fax line owners appearing on the WestFax 'Megalist' engaged in some conduct equivalent to a consent to fax, it is impossible to determine which members of the putative class were impacted by Defendant's conduct and which were not. Without such evidence, Plaintiff is unable to show what proportion of the putative class members suffered an injury 'fairly traceable' to DRS's conduct (based on receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements in the absence of consent) and hence is unable to show that the issue of standing will involve common questions of fact as opposed to individualized determinations." New Concept, a now-defunct Arizona company, brings this putative class action against DRS, a Florida corporation that markets medical products and medical related financial services. In its operative Amended Complaint New Concept alleges that DRS violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, when it sent an unsolicited one-page facsimile advertisement with a non-compliant opt-out notice to Dr. Isabel Simpson, a dentist then under the employ of New Concept, through a telephone line owned by New Concept.[CC] DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Sady Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Diversified Consultants, Inc. is a collection agency. The Company offers pre-collection, claims adjustment, bad debt management, third party transfer, and client access 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 DR. REDDY'S: Court Terminates Critchley Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as REGINA CRITCHLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06436-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E. Arpert entered an order on Feb. 26, 2020: 1. terminating without prejudice Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, subject to reinstatement upon the written request of any party; 2. scheduling a telephone status conference on March 24, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel must initiate the call to 609-989-2144; and 3. directing Counsel to confer at least 48 hours in advance of each Court appearance to confirm attendance and to review any matters to be discussed with the Court. Dr. Reddy's is a multinational pharmaceutical company. The company was founded by Anji Reddy, who previously worked in the mentor institute Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, of Hyderabad, India. Dr. Reddy's manufactures and markets a wide range of pharmaceuticals in India and overseas.[CC] ELITE SPORTSWEAR: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA -------------------------------------------------- Elite Sportswear, L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Elite Sportswear, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02193 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Elite Sportswear, L.P. produces and distributes sporting apparels. The Company manufactures women and misses gymnastics and outer wears. Elite Sportswear serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Court Remands Evans Suit to Texas State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court for the Southern District of Texas has remanded to state court the case captioned MARY EVANS and DON WESTON DORRELL, Individually and as Representatives of a Class, Plaintiffs, v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP; OILTANKING PARTNERS, LP; and CENTERPOINT ENERGY, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-19-3555. (S.D. Tex.). Enterprise Products Partners LP and Oiltanking Partners LP are partnerships involved in the oil logistics and storage business. In 2014, Oiltanking began constructing oil pipelines in Channelview, Texas, on a pipeline easement owned by CenterPoint. Enterprise purchased a controlling interest in Oiltanking in October of 2014 and became partial owner of the pipelines, the first of which was completed in 2015. During construction, Enterprise and Oiltanking compacted excavated soil on top of the pipeline, creating a topsoil with a large amount of hardened clay that did not match the site's original, permeable topsoil. Plaintiffs allege that the new topsoil diverts surface water and has caused significant flooding in the areas on either side of the pipeline easement. Plaintiffs allege that this flooding has caused direct damage to some properties and reduced the value of other properties in the area. In August 2019, Plaintiffs Mary Evans and Don Weston Dorrell, individually and as representatives of a class, sued defendants Enterprise Products Partners, LP, Oiltanking Partners, LP and CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, in the 165th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The class action allege negligence, trespass, nuisance, and a violation of the Texas Water Code. Enterprise timely removed the class action to the Texas Southern District Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) in September 2019. In October 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand, seeking remand of the action to state court under CAFA's mandatory and discretionary remand provisions for class actions that are genuinely local in nature. Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiffs cannot now present evidence of the citizenship of the class members because their Original Complaint does not allege any facts as to citizenship and (2) the evidence provided by Plaintiffs does not suffice to prove the citizenship of the class members. CAFA allows defendants to remove class actions to federal court that involve (1) a class of over one hundred members (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000 (3) primary defendants other than states, state officials, or other government entities and (4) diversity of state citizenship between at least one class plaintiff and at least one defendant. * Evidence of Class Member Citizenship Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they contend establishes that more than two-thirds or at least more than one-third of the proposed class members are Texas citizens. That evidence includes information from local tax authority, the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD); affidavits from Plaintiff representatives; U.S. census data; and survey data, among other things. Defendants argue this evidence does not suffice to establish class member citizenship for the purposes of CAFA. The class consists of 11,978 potential members, 10,271 who own parcels in the class area plus 1,707 former owners. Of the 10,271 parcels, 10,017 owners listed Texas mailing addresses for the receipt of property tax bills with HCAD. Taken alone, mailing addresses do not suffice to establish residency. The combination of property ownership and a Texas billing address, however, has some probative value. Nevertheless, the court concludes that this evidence is not sufficient to carry Plaintiffs' burden because it requires guesswork as to the proportion of the 10,017 owners with Texas billing addresses who may not be Texas residents. More specific and compelling is Plaintiffs' random sample of the HCAD list of owners, the Court notes. Using a randomly generated 5% sample of the 10,271 parcels, Plaintiffs matched individual owners listed by HCAD with Texas driver's licenses and entity owners with public data from the Texas Secretary of State. Only 66 of the sample of 514 parcels, or 12.84%, are owned by individuals who did not hold Texas driver's licenses or entities who were not formed in Texas and do not have their principal place of business here.26 87.16% of the parcels are owned by individual holders of Texas driver's licenses, Texas business organizations, or Texas government entities. The Court concludes that evidence that these individuals own property in Texas and hold a Texas driver's license indicates Texas residency. Individual class members' residence is prima facie evidence that they are domiciled in Texas. Texas driver's licenses are also probative of an intent to remain in Texas, as a person is unlikely to obtain a driver's license in a state he does not intend to remain in for some time. This evidence is supplemented by affidavits from the named plaintiffs and five possible class members stating that they reside in Texas and intend to remain. Defendants object that the random sample is too small to be probative. The Court disagrees; a random sample of 514 parcels consisting of 5% of the total population of HCAD addresses is large enough both in absolute size and compared to the overall population to have significant probative value. Defendants also object that Texas driver's licenses are not probative as to state citizenship because foreign nationals may hold them. Defendants argue that the court should disregard the driver's license data absent a showing of the proportion who are United States citizens. The court may, however, take judicial notice of the most recent public data from the United States Census American Community Survey, which estimates that 86.67% of adults in Texas and 78.93% of adults in Harris County are United States citizens. In order to be as conservative as possible and to avoid speculation, the court will apply the percentages from the census data to the 87.16% of the owners Plaintiffs have shown either hold Texas driver's licenses or are Texas entities to determine the proportion who are likely Texas citizens. Combining these figures produces a reasonable and practical estimate that 68.80% to 75.54% of the current property owners listed by HCAD are either Texas entities or are individuals who are domiciled in Texas and are citizens of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 68.80% to 75.54% of the owners listed by HCAD are Texas citizens. Plaintiffs' random sample does not, however, include the 1,707 former owners who are also part of the class but whose names and addresses are not on the HCAD list. The only evidence as to the former owners is that they previously owned property in Texas, which alone does not suffice to prove citizenship. Accounting for the former owners reduces the proportion of the total class for whom there is significant evidence of Texas citizenship to 59.00% to 64.77% of the total proposed class of 11,978 members. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that at least two-thirds of the proposed class are citizens of Texas as required for CAFA's mandatory remand provisions, but Plaintiffs have satisfied the one-third threshold that permits discretionary remand. Defendants are Texas citizens, greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the proposed plaintiff class members are Texas citizens, and all of the discretionary remand factors weigh in favor of remand. Accordingly, the Court concludes it should decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA and remand the case to state court. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs Mary Evans and Don Weston Dorrell's, Individually and as Representatives of a Class, Motion to Remand. The action is remanded to the 165th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Defendant CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC's FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Defendants Enterprise Products Partners, LP and Oiltanking Partners, LP's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wjep3ru from Leagle.com Mary Evans, individually and as representative of a class & Don Weston Dorrell, individually and as representative of a class, Plaintiffs, represented by Tej R. Paranjpe , Paranjpe Mahadass LLP, 3701 Kirby Drive Suite 530, Houston, TX 77098, Douglas A. Daniels - doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com - Daniels & Tredennick, LLP & Sabrina Rebecca Tour , Daniels and Tredennick LLP, 6363 Woodway Dr, Ste 965, Houston, TX 77057 Enterprise Products Partners LP & Oiltanking Partners LP, Defendants, represented by D. Ferguson McNiel - fmcniel@velaw.com - Vinson & Elkins, Brooke Ashley Noble - bnoble@velaw.com - Vinson Elkins LLP, John Hooshik Kim – jhk@thekimlawfirm.com -The Kim Law Firm, Matthew Charles Hoffman -mhoffman@velaw.com - Vinson Elkins, Patrick W. Mizell - pmizell@velaw.com - Vinson Elkins LLP & Stephanie Lynn Noble - snoble@velaw.com - Vinson Elkins LLP. CenterPoint Energy, Defendant, represented by Tynan Buthod - ty.buthod@bakerbotts.com - Baker Botts LLP & Kathryn Dawson McElvy - meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com - Baker Botts LLP. FAIR CAPITAL: Cymonisse Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FAIR CAPITAL, LLC. The case is styled as Germa Cymonisse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAIR CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02430 (D.N.J., March 5, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Fair Capital is a full-service debt collection agency.[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 FBCS INC: Bloom Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle A Bloom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02634-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., March 11, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FBCS is a private familyowned business and provider of accounts receivable management and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Withdrawal Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lourdes Rivera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO, Case No. 3:20-cv-01122 (D.P.R., March 5, 2020), arises from the Bank's routine practices, which violate its contract, of causing its accountholders: (a) to incur two separate fees for using an out of network ATM to withdraw cash; and (b) in some circumstances to incur three separate fees for using an out of network ATM to withdraw cash. According to the complaint, FBPR has been sneaking small charges onto its accountholders' checking accounts to pad its bottom line. FBPR has for years been assessing out-of-network ATM fees ("OON Fees") when its accountholders use a non-FBPR ATM--in addition to the usage fees charged by the ATM owner. But FBPR never adequately informs its accountholders that use of an out-of-network ATM withdrawal would incur two fees--one from the ATM owner and a second one from FBPR. ATM fee revenue has risen dramatically in recent years for FBPR and other banks, and has become one of the primary drivers of bank fee income, says the complaint. FBPR assesses OON Fees on its accountholders who withdraw funds from ATMs not owned by FBPR. These fees add up very quickly--to accountholders' detriment and surprise. Though the fee amount is small, the consequences of repeated assessment of such undisclosed fees can be devastating, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff has been injured by FBPR's improper practices. On behalf of herself and the class, the Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for FBPR's breach of contract and violation of the common law. Plaintiff Lourdes Rivera is a resident of Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, and holds a FBPR checking account. Defendant FBPR provides retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Facsimile: (202) 871-8180 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - David C. Indiano, Esq. INDIANO & WILLIAMS, P.S.C. 207 Del Parque Street, Third Floor San Juan, PR 00912 Phone: 787-641-4545 Fax: 787-641-4544 Email: david.indiano@indianowilliams.com GATESTONE & CO: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Meco Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Lirjon Meco, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GATESTONE & CO. INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00326-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com GENERAL CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rivera Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rivera and Yarelis Rivera, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GENERAL CONNECTION LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and NATALIE GUZMAN, an individual, Case No. 6:20-cv-00415-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla., March 6, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and earned commissions. The Plaintiffs say that they and their fellow Tax Preparers have been systemically denied wages to which they were entitled by law and now seek to hold the Defendants accountable. The Defendants circumvented the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiffs as "independent contractors," denying them minimum wage and time and one-half of their regular rate for overtime hours worked. In addition, the Plaintiffs were denied their earned commissions. Under no plausible interpretation of the FLSA were the Plaintiffs and their fellow Tax Preparers exempt from minimum and overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as tax preparers, providing tax preparation and filing services. General Connection was, and continues to be, a Florida limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com GTriantis@forthepeople.com GIGGLE HOLDING: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------ Giggle Holding, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Giggle Holding, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02190 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Giggle Holding, LLC operates a chain of baby products stores for new and expecting parents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Garage Door Technicians Class Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN GARY DENHAM, et al., v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act consisting of: "all current and former W-2 technicians who worked for Defendants in California and Arizona at any time in the three years preceding the date this Order is entered"; 2. directing the parties to meet and confer no later than March 13, 2020, and then lodge with chambers a modified version of the Notice and Consent to Join forms. The lodged document shall be in an editable electronic format. The parties shall modify the Redmon Notice and Consent to Join forms only as necessary to reflect the differences presented by this case.; 3. directing Defendants within 21 days of entry of the Order, to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the names and last known addresses, email addresses, cellular phone numbers, and dates of employment of the potential class members; 4. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to distribute the approved notice and consent forms no later than April 3, 2020, to the potential class members via either mail, email, or text message; and 5. directing Potential class members to have 90 days from the date of the mailing, emailing, or messaging of the first notice to opt in to the litigation as party plaintiffs. The Court said, "The goal of conditional certification is simply to allow the Plaintiffs to proceed through discovery as a group. Indeed, it is altogether unsurprising that Plaintiffs haven't submitted extensive evidence at this stage, since it is the Defendants who are better situated to have the relevant records and the case is not yet through discovery. Nor is the Court swayed by the declarations the Defendants have submitted, which show pay stubs from select pay periods in which Plaintiffs did receive overtime pay. Federal courts are in agreement that evidence from the employer is not germane at the first stage of the certification process, which is focused simply on whether notice should be disseminated to potential claimants. To be sure, these documents might be relevant if Defendants opt to move for decertification after discovery, but that's a battle for another day. In sum, the Court concludes that the requirements for conditional certification are met here." Denham and the other opt-in Plaintiffs are garage door technicians who previously worked as non-exempt W-2 employees for the Defendants in either California or Arizona. Global offers all garage door services to commercial and residential clients, including installation, repairs and maintenance.[CC] HARBOR FREIGHT: Kaupelis Seeks to Certify Class of Chainsaw Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as WILL KAUPELIS and FRANK ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 1, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying these putative classes: California Class: "all persons in California who purchased a Portland 14-inch electric chainsaw for personal, family, or household use from June 17, 2013 through May 13, 2018"; Multi-State Implied Warranty Class: "all persons who purchased a Portland 14-inch electric chainsaw for personal, family, or household use: (1) in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, or Wyoming on or after June 17, 2015 through May 13, 2018; or (2) in Colorado or Massachusetts on or after June 17, 2016 through May 13, 2018"; and Nationwide UCL Class: "all persons in the United States who purchased a Portland 14-inch electric chainsaw for personal, family, or household use from June 17, 2015 through May 13, 2018"; or alternatively Multi-State Consumer Protection Class: "all persons who purchased a Portland 14-inch electric chainsaw for personal, family, or household use: (1) in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, or New Jersey from June 17, 2013 through May 13, 2018; (2) in the state Missouri from June 17, 2014 through May 13, 2018; (3) in the states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, or Washington from June 17, 2015 through May 13, 2018; (4) in the states of Illinois and New York from June 17, 2016 through May 13, 2018." Excluded from each proposed class are persons who already received a replacement unit or refund from Harbor Freight in connection with its recall. 2. appointing themselves as class representatives; 3. appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel, and award other relief as the Court deems just. Harbor Freight is a privately held discount tool and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California, which operates a chain of retail stores, as well as a mail-order and e-commerce business.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com HAYT HAYT: Faces Cohnen FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Cohnen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-02429 (D.N.J., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hayt Hayt and Landau is a law firm based out of Philadelphia and New Jersey that handles many credit card collection cases in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com HERBALIFE LTD: Lavigne Class Certification Bid under Advisement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Michael Lavigne, et al. v. Herbalife, LTD., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-07480-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order on Feb. 24, 2020, taking under submission these motions: -- Herbalife's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Herbalife is a global multi-level marketing corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements. The company was founded by Mark Hughes in 1980, and it employs an estimated 8,900 people worldwide.[CC] Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Etan Mark, Esq. Jason M. Jones, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 SW 8th St Ste 1999 Miami, FL 33130-3036 Telephone: 305-374-0440 E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com Attorneys Present for Defendants: Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq. Mark T. Drooks, Esq. Bird Marella 1875 Century Park E, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2524 Telephone: (310) 210-2100 Facsimile: (310) 210-2110 E-mail: gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com HEXCEL CORPORATION: Schwartz Suit Challenges Merger With Woodward ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Schwartz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HEXCEL CORPORATION, NICK L. STANAGE, JEFFREY C. CAMPBELL, THOMAS A. GENDRON, GUY C. HACHEY, JEFFREY A. GRAVES, CYNTHIA M. EGNOTOVICH, JOEL S. BECKMAN, LYNN BRUBAKER and CATHERINE A. SUEVER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01975 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public holders of the common stock of Hexcel against the Company and the members of its board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Regulation G, in connection with the proposed merger between Hexcel and Woodward, Inc. On January 12, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive 0.625 shares of Woodward common stock for each share of Hexcel stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Hexcel shareholders will own approximately 45% and Woodward shareholders will own approximately 55% of the common stock outstanding. On February 28, 2020, in order to convince Hexcel shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff contends that while touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, 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 S-4 materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Plaintiff says, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Hexcel shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Hexcel' financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff argues that it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, the Plaintiff 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 material information is disclosed to Hexcel 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. The Plaintiff is a holder of Hexcel common stock. Hexcel is an advanced composite company that develops, manufactures and markets lightweight, high-performance structural materials including carbon fibers, specialty reinforcements, prepregs and other fiber-reinforced matrix materials, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Separated Workers' Wages, Sandoval Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janelly Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00457 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., March 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay wages due to separated employees and to provide accurate itemized wage statements under the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt store employee. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation operating hardware stores throughout the United States, including in Riverside County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 HP INC: Electrical Workers Fund Sues over 10% Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP INC.; DION J. WEISLER; CATHERINE A. LESJAK; and STEVEN J. FIELER, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01260 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2020) is a securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased HP's common stock between February 23, 2017 and October 3, 2019, inclusive. On February 23, 2017 and October 3, 2019, HP assured investors that its new approach to managing and aligning demand and inventory in its Supplies business would avert the types of problems that necessitated the $450 million buy-back. The centerpiece of this new approach was focused on what the Company called its "four-box model." For several years, the Company measured its Supplies business through this model, which focuses on the four key drivers of revenue growth: in-store base, usage, market share, and price. With the shift to the pull strategy to manage its Supplies business, the Company's four-box model became the primary focus of the Company and its investors because HP assured investors that its use of the four-box model enabled it to accurately assess demand for products in its Supplies business and manage the inventory placed in its sales and distribution channels. Throughout the Class Period, the Company emphasized the four-box model as an accurate, reliable tool to determine demand and revenue in the Supplies business, and reassured investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line of sight to supply stabilization." The Defendants repeatedly highlighted the reliability of the Company's four-box model and the revenue growth of the Supplies business, touting their "continued confidence in the predictive value of the four box model" and stating that the Company's "Supplies revenue is in line with the expectations that we set, and that our 4-box model continues to drive predictability." These statements were false. In truth, Defendants knew HP lacked reliable, automated data for the four-box model and, as a result, the four-box model was not a reliable tool and provided HP with only a partial, outdated indicator of the demand for Supplies products. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of HP's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. The truth began to emerge on February 27, 2019, after the market closed, when the Company reported disappointing total Supplies revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2019 due to weaker than predicted demand from commercial customers in HP's Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA") market. The Company blamed these results on an increase in online sales, where the Company had a lower market share and faced more competition from cheaper third-party alternatives than with traditional commercial resellers and in-store retailers, in addition to price sensitivity due to increased macro uncertainty. Significantly, in reporting these results, the Company admitted that its four-box model had been based upon incorrect data concerning inventory, market share, and pricing assumptions. Accordingly, due to its limited "visibility into the downstream channel ecosystem," the Company "did not see clearly enough that we had an issue." The Company also revealed that it lacked telemetry data to determine reliable market share assumptions for its Supplies business. The Company revised its market share and pricing assumptions and announced a plan to lower channel inventory levels once again -- as it had done in the second half of 2016 -- which created a $100 million headwind to the Company's Supplies revenue for the remainder of fiscal 2019. As a result, the Company revised its previous estimate of Supplies revenue for fiscal 2019 to a decline of 3%, versus prior guidance of flat to slightly up revenue year over year. These disclosures caused the Company's stock price to decline from $23.85 per share to $19.73 per share, or over 17%, on high trading volume. On August 22, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced that Defendant Weisler would step down at the end of October 2019 due to a family health matter. HP also announced mixed earnings results for the third quarter of fiscal 2019, with Supplies revenue down 7% year-over-year. On this news, the price of HP stock dropped nearly 6%, from $18.93 per share to $17.81 per share, on high trading volume. Then, on October 3, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced that it was "departing from the purely transactional Supplies-centric business model" and moving away from using the four-box model, transitioning instead to a hardware-driven business model. The major change to the Company's business model would give customers the choice between a discounted HP printer that can only function with HP supplies or a higher-priced HP printer with the option to choose third-party supplies. Under the new business model, the Company would de-emphasize Supplies revenue as "the singular metric to determine our progress" and instead focus on "the key metrics [of] service growth and operating profit dollars, which better reflect[] the system profitability." The Company also announced mass layoffs as part of a major restructuring, in which it expects to cut between 7,000 to 9,000 positions, or up to 16% of its global workforce, over three years. As a result of these disclosures, the price of HP's stock dropped from $18.40 per share to $16.64 per share, or nearly 10%, on unusually high trading volume. HP Inc. provides imaging and printing systems, computing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home. The Company offers products which includes laser and inkjet printers, scanners, copiers and faxes, personal computers, workstations, storage solutions, and other computing and printing systems. HP sells its products worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and - Jonathan D. 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 ICHIBAN GRP: Court Certifies Portion of FLSA Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ZHANG, et al. v. ICHIBAN GRP., LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order dated March 3, 2020, for an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective consisting of: "all tipped and non tipped employees [for Defendants] work similarly long hours without a commensurate payment of overtime at the one and half rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek"; 2. authorizing issuance of notice to the collective limiting to cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and deliverymen employed by Defendants in the three years preceding the filing of Plaintiffs' complaint; 3. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations; 4. directing Defendants to produce in electronic format the contact information, consistent with the foregoing decision, for all cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and deliverymen employed by Defendants from February 9, 2014 to present. The Court said, "It is proper to certify a collective action for all employees who were cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and deliverymen at this time because Plaintiffs made the required modest showing that they are similarly situated to potential opt-in plaintiffs. However, the Court will not extend the conditionally certified collective to include all non-managerial employees of Defendants." Ichiban is one of the pioneers in the Active Participation Management. The company screen the market continuously for the best picks, carefully select the companies to invest into, take a role in the Board and develop a plan to create substantial value for the company and for its shareholders.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: John Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Attorneys for the Defendants are: Matthew J. Mann, Esq. Stephan R. Weiss, Esq. MANN LAW FIRM, PC 426 Troy-Schenectady Latham, NY 12110 IDOC: Tyree et al. Seek to Certify Class of MSR Parolees -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER TYREE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROB JEFFREYS, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Case No. 1:18-cv-01991 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting the motion to certify a class consisting of: "all parents of minor children who are on Mandatory Supervised Release for a sex offense under the supervision of the Illinois Department of Corrections"; and 2. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois Department of Corrections' policies concerning contact between minor children and their parents who are on Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) for sex offenses. The Plaintiffs Jennifer Tyree, Celina Montoya, Ronald Molina and Zachary Blaye bring this case individually and on behalf of all parolees who are subject to the challenged policies. IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: 847-361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Ave. Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: 773-283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net JFC INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Labels Hapi Wasabi Peas, Yothers Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hilary Yothers and Zain Eisenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JFC INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HAPI PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01657-LB (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), is brought for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's False Advertising Law, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violation of New York's General Business Law, and violation of New York's General Business Law. The action is brought against the Defendants regarding their false and misleading labeling and marketing of their Hapi Wasabi Coated Peas. The labeling and packaging of the Mislabeled Food contains the misleading claim that the Mislabeled Food contains wasabi ("Wasabi Claims"), says the complaint. The Defendants label their Mislabeled Food as "wasabi coated" and claim that the Mislabeled Food contains wasabi. The Plaintiffs allege that this misleads consumers into believing that the Mislabeled Food contains wasabi even though the Mislabeled Food does not contain wasabi. By doing so, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendants are able to charge a substantial price premium for their Mislabeled Food on account of these false Wasabi Claims. Plaintiff Yothers purchased Hapi Wasabi Coated Peas from Berkeley Bowl Marketplace in Berkeley, California. Plaintiff Eisenberg purchased Hapi Wasabi Coated Peas from Walmart in Kingston, New York. JFC International manufactures, sells, and distributes the Mislabeled Food, and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress, and packaging of Hapi Wasabi Coated Peas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: scott@bursor.com KPOP STAR HAIR: Li Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- Xiao Ra Li, on behalf of herself, and other similarly situated employees v. KPOP STAR HAIR, INC., K-POP NAILS, INC., d/b/a COCO NAILS ART, INC., XIN LI and JOHN STEVEN JARAMILLO GARZON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01236 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' failure to properly pay their employees. The Defendants have committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours for each workweek, and "spread of hours" premium for each day they worked 10 or more hours, and failure to provide undisrupted and adequate meal breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a manicurist by the Defendant from August 10, 2015, until September 30, 2018. The Defendants own and operate nail salons located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter R. Qi, Esq. HEIFERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10E Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 888-9545 L18 HOLDINGS: Faces Martinez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against L18 Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. L18 Holdings, Inc., doing business as: Tasting Room, Case No. 1:20-cv-01211 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. L18 Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company and offers a platform for its members to buy and sell discounted wines, gourmet foods, and epicurean products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com LUCKY NEPHEW: Parris Class Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA and NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yuseff Parris, Dawn Littlepage, and Ntshona Littlepage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCKY NEPHEW CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORPORATION, G & M REALTY L.P., CHARLES ROLLINS, ALONZO WILLIAMS, DAVID WOLKOFF, and GERALD WOLKOFF, Case No. 1:20-cv-01253 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL and were entitled to overtime compensation. However, despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiffs were not always paid overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay or the minimum wage, whichever is greater, for the hours they worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a security guard and as lift operators. Lucky Nephew sells and rents construction material and equipment and provides various construction support services to contractors, such as security, fire safety, and labor coordination.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com LVNV FUNDING: Norton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Sonya Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC, and Law Office of Harris & Zide, Case 4:18-cv-05051-DMR (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 17, 2018), the the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 14, 2020, for an Order: 1. certifying a Class and Subclass; 2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. The proposed Class consists of all California residents where all of these conditions apply: a. LVNV Funding, LLC, represented by Law Office of Harris & Zide, took judicial action (including obtaining Writs of Execution, wage garnishment, and bank levy) after August 17, 2014 (four years prior to the filing of this action) to collect a judgment based on a consumer debt 1 obtained in a California court; b. Arrow Financial Services, LLC was the plaintiff of record at the time the judgment was entered; and c. LVNV Funding, LLC did not file an Assignment of Judgment in conformity with California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 673 or otherwise become the assignee of record. The four-year class period corresponds to the four-year statute of limitations in the Unfair Competition Law. The proposed Subclass definition is identical to the Class definition, except that it limits the class period to August 17, 2017 to present, corresponding to the Rosenthal Act's and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's one-year statute of limitations. Members of the Subclass allege a direct violation of the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA. The class action challenges the unlawful conduct of debt buyer LVNV Funding, and its attorney Law Office of Harris & Zide, in pursuing judgment collections under the name of Arrow Financial Services, LLC. Arrow Financial obtained a default judgment against Plaintiff in 2008 but as of October 2012, had gone out of business and filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of State.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William E. Kennedy, Esq. CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY 2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 241-1000 Facsimile: (408) 241-1500 E-mail: wkennedy@kennedyconsumerlaw.com - and - Natalie Lyons, Esq. Gina Di Giusto, Esq. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1040 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 271-8443 Facsimile: (510) 868-4521 E-mail: nlyons@heraca.org gdigiusto@heraca.org MCDONALD'S CORP: Misrepresents Vanilla Ice Cream, Webber Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emelina Webber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 7:20-cv-02058 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading representations of their "soft serve" ice cream or reduced fat ice cream purporting to be flavored only by their natural characterizing flavor of vanilla. McDonald's menu boards in its restaurants, drive through displays, self-service kiosks, Web site, conventional and digital advertising, social media marketing and point-of-sale displays identify the Product as "Vanilla." The Plaintiff alleges that the representations are misleading because though the flavor is represented as vanilla, the vanilla taste and flavor is not provided exclusively by vanilla but from non-vanilla sources. The Defendant's representations of the Product are designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers, says the complaint. The Defendant has sold more of the Products and at higher prices per unit than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.99 per cone, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption. McDonald's Corporation manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells "soft serve" ice cream or reduced fat ice cream purporting to be flavored only by their natural characterizing flavor of vanilla.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com MDL 2221: All Non-Amex Class Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE AMERICAN EXPRESS ANTI-STEERING RULES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: The Consolidated Class Action. ANIMAL LAW, INC., IL FORNO, INC., ITALIAN COLORS RESTAURANT, JASA INC., LOPEZ-DEJONGE, INC., PLYMOUTH OIL CORP. d/b/a LIBERTY GAS STATION, CLAM LAKE PARTNERS, LLC, QWIK LUBE, LLC, and LAJOLLA AUTO TECH, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-MD-2221 (NGG) (RER) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted (i) American Express' (Amex) motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of all the Amex Class' claims, and (ii) Amex's motion to dismiss all of the Non-Amex Class' claims under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs bring claims against Amex on behalf of two putative classes: (1) a class of merchants who accept Amex cards pursuant to a Card Acceptance Agreement ("CAA") with Amex; and (2) a class of merchants who do not accept Amex cards and who have no contract with Amex. The action challenges non-discrimination provisions ("Anti-Steering Rules") contained in the CAAs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Anti-Steering Rules unreasonably restrain interbrand price competition among general purpose credit and charge card networks ("credit card networks") because they: (1) stifle competition among the networks; (2) impose supracompetitive merchant fees, with corresponding offsetting credit card user economic benefits; (3) increase the overall price of credit card transactions above competitive levels; and (4) raise consumer retail prices throughout the country, thereby reducing output. The class representatives fall into two groups. The representatives of the Amex Class, which accept Amex cards, are: (1) Animal Land, Inc., a Georgia corporation; (2) II Fomo, Inc., a California corporation; (3) Italian Colors Restaurant, a California business; (3) Jasa Inc., a Louisiana corporation; (4) Lopez-Dejonge, Inc., an Alabama corporation; (5) Plymouth Oil Corp., doing business as Liberty Gas Station, a Pennsylvania corporation, and (6) Clam Lake Partners, LLC (successor in interest to previous class representative Firefly Air Solutions, LLC), a Minnesota corporation. The representatives of the Non-Amex Class, which do not accept Amex cards, are: (1) Qwik Lube, LCC, a New York corporation and (2) LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc., a California corporation. The Plaintiffs also assert the existence of two California Subclasses: A California Amex Subclass and a California Non-Amex Subclass. The California Amex Subclass is represented by II Forno, Inc. and Italian Colors Restaurant, and the California Non-Amex Subclass is represented by LaJolla Auto Tech., Inc. All the Plaintiffs are merchants. Defendant American Express Co. is a New York corporation. Defendant American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express Co. The Plaintiffs lay out two geographic markets: (1) the United States for Counts One, Two, and Three; and (2) California for Counts Four and Five. The relevant product market is the two-sided credit card market, including all transactions provided by Amex and its competitors, MasterCard, Discover, and Visa. After a variety of stays and other proceedings, most notably the Supreme Court's decision in Ohio, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on Dec. 17, 2018. The Second Amended Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: on behalf of the Amex Class for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, based on the Anti-Steering Rules; on behalf of the Non-Amex class for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, based on the Anti-Steering Rules; on behalf of the Amex class for violation of Section of the Sherman Act, based on the aspect of the CAA's arbitration provisions disallowing collective action; and on behalf of the California subclasses for violation of California Antitrust Laws and the California Unfair Competition Law. On March 15, 2019, Amex filed its fully briefed motion to compel arbitration of the Amex Class' claims and motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental letter notifying the court of the Supreme Court's decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. Amex responded shortly thereafter. Currently pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Amex's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of all the Amex Class' claims; and (2) Amex's motion to dismiss all of the Non-Amex Class' claims under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court's decision in Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest. controls. In that case, the Supreme Court considered the enforceability of the same arbitration provision as that at issue in the instant case. The plaintiffs were merchants who accepted Amex cards and brought an antitrust suit against Amex, arguing that Amex impermissibly used its market power to force merchants to accept its credit cards while assessing fees approximately 30% higher than those for competing credit cards. Amex moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in their contract with the merchants -- the same as that at issue in the present case -- that required all disputes between the parties to be resolved by arbitration and provided that there will be no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis. The court found that the arbitration provision was enforceable under the FAA. The Plaintiffs argue that the case is different from Italian Colors because, unlike their, the plaintiffs in Italian Colors did not assert that market-wide injunctive relief was necessary to vindicate their statutory rights. Judge Garaufis holds that the Plaintiffs are correct that, under Italian Colors, the effective vindication exception would certainly cover a provision in an arbitration agreement prohibiting the assertion of certain statutory remedies. But the text of the CAA does not prohibit the assertion of any statutory remedies. The Plaintiffs' primary argument seems to be that market-wide equitable relief is necessary for effective vindication of their rights under the Clayton Act, and that foreclosing their ability to access that relief effectively prohibits their assertion of those rights. This cannot be true. The Plaintiffs have provided no reason for the Court to assume that the Clayton Act, at the time of its enactment, provided statutory rights that had no effective means of vindication. The Court therefore grants Amex's motion to compel arbitration of the Amex Class' claims. The Court next address Amex's motion to dismiss the Non-Amex Class' claims under both federal and California law. The Court finds that the Non-Amex Class has not established federal antitrust standing. The efficient enforcer inquiry turns on: (1) whether the violation was a direct or remote cause of the injury; (2) whether there is an identifiable class of other persons whose self-interest would normally lead them to sue for the violation; (3) whether the injury was speculative; and (4) whether there is a risk that other plaintiffs would be entitled to recover duplicative damages or that damages would be difficult to apportion among possible victims of the antitrust injury. All four of the efficient-enforcer factors cut against the Plaintiffs. Amex argues that the California Non-Amex Subclass lacks standing to sue under California law for essentially the same reasons it lacks standing under federal law. The Plaintiffs contend that standing under California law must be analyzed independent of federal antitrust standing, and argue that the California Non-Amex Subclass does have standing to pursue their antitrust claims under California law. As an initial matter, the Court holds that the Plaintiffs are correct that dismissal of the Non-Amex Class's Sherman Act claims does not necessarily mandate the dismissal of their claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ( "UCL") and California state antitrust law, known as the Cartwright Act. However, dismissal is independently appropriate on these claims for substantially the same reasons as it is appropriate on their federal claims. He concludes that the California Non-Amex Subclass has failed to allege standing under the Cartwright Act. And because the Court has dismissed all of the Non-Amex Class' other claims and the Plaintiffs have provided no reason that the California Non-Amex Subclass' UCL claims survive independently, the Court also dismisses their claims under the UCL. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Garaufis granted Amex's motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss. The Court retains limited jurisdiction to enforce any award resulting from any arbitration between Amex and members of the Amex class. All claims asserted by the Non-Amex Class are dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Qwik Lube, LCC and LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc. and to remove them from the caption. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/HwmG77 from Leagle.com. In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Philip C. Korologos -- pkorologos@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., ANN INC., Automobile Club of Southern California, AutoNation, Inc., Bally Total Fitness Corporation, BJ's Restaurants, Inc., Bridgestone Americas Inc., Brookstone Company, Inc., CALERES, CarMax, Inc., Centric Group, LLC, CoreLogic, Inc., Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Darden Restaurants, Inc., Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Festival Fun Parks, LLC, Fitness International, LLC, Fresh Enterprises, LLC, Georgetown University, Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Ingram Micro, Inc., Innovative Dining Group, Jack in the Box Inc., Lucky Brand Dungarees, LLC, MorphoTrust USA LLC, Nestle Waters North America, Nespresso USA, Inc., The New York Times Company, Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Incorporated, Public Storage, The Regents of the University of California, Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Siemens Corporation, Sofa Mart, LLC, Denver Mattress Co., LLC, Big Sur Waterbeds, Inc., Staples, Inc., SYNNEX Corporation, Target Corporation, Tesoro Companies, Inc., Tiffany and Company, University of Michigan, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. & The WP Company LLC, Movants, represented by Daniel A. Sasse -- dsasse@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP & Kelly T. Currie -- kcurrie@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring, LLP. Marriott International, Inc., Movant, represented by Kelly T. Currie, Crowell & Moring, LLP. United Airlines, Inc. & Ushio America, Inc., Movants, represented by Daniel A. Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP. Rite Aid Corporation & Rite Aid HDQTRS Corp, Plaintiffs, represented by David P. Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Eric Bloom, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, James Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Maureen Smith Lawrence, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, pro hac vice, Paul E. Slater, Sperling Slater & Spitz, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice & Zachary R. Davis, Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin. Walgreen Co, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Kenny Nachwalter, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, PC, Paul E. Slater, Sperling Slater & Spitz, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice & William Jay Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc & American Express Company, Defendants, represented by Peter T. Barbur, Cravath Swaine Moore LLP, Alanna Rutherford, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Athena N. Cheng, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Damien Jerome Marshall, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Daniel Ryan, Hinshaw & Culbertson Llp, David John Hanus, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Donald L. Flexner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth L. Grayer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Eric Brenner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, John Francis LaSalle, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Kevin J. Orsini, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip M. Bowman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip C. Korologos, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Robert M. Cooper, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Tamara Rubb, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & William T. Thomas -- tthomas@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner. Susan Burdette, Defendant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC & Melinda Ann Nicholson -- melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. Government Plaintiffs in 10-cv-4496, Interested Party, represented by Anne E. Schneider, Attorney General of Missouri & Mark H. Hamer, Department of Justice. Target Corporation, Staples, Inc. & The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., Interested Partys, represented by Alycia Nadine Broz, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Gregory Alan Clarick, Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, Michael J. Canter, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP & Robert N. Webner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Interested Party, represented by Robert J. Jossen, Dechert LLP. Gary Friedman, Interested Party, represented by Samuel Issacharoff, Samuel Issacharoff, Esq. & Theresa Trzaskoma, Brune & Richard LLP. DFS Services LLC, Discover Home Loans, Inc. & Discover Bank, Interested Partys, represented by Jennifer M. Selendy, Selendy & Gay PLLC. Macy's Inc., Kohl's Corporation, The TJX Companies, Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., L Brands, Inc., Big Lots Stores, Inc., PNS Stores, Inc., C.S. Ross Company, Closeout Distribution, Inc., Acena Retail Group, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co., OfficeMax Incorporated, Saks Incorporated, Chico's FAS, Inc., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., American Signature, Inc., National Retail Federation & Lord & Taylor Acquisitions, Inc., Objectors, represented by Alycia Nadine Broz, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Gregory Alan Clarick, Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, Michael J. Canter, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP & Robert N. Webner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. Kevin S. Scheunemann, Objector, pro se. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Objector, represented by Alison Berkowitz Prout, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP, pro hac vice & Frank M. Lowrey, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP, pro hac vice. The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Objector, represented by Adam E. Schulman, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, pro hac vice. Brenda Howell, Objector, represented by Denise H. Gibbon, Attorney at Law, pro hac vice. MDL 2543: Reconsideration Bid on Summary Judgment Denied in GM Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Summary Judgment Ruling in the General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. The litigation arises from alleged defects in the ignition switches and other features of certain General Motors vehicles. Some of the claims are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of GM car owners and lessors whose vehicles were subject to recalls and who now seek to recover economic losses, on the theory that they overpaid for their vehicles because a car with a safety defect is worth less than a car without a safety defect. In particular, the Court reached three significant conclusions. First, the Court held that, in all three Bellwether States, Plaintiffs' benefit-of-the-bargain damages are properly measured as the lesser of (1) the cost of repair, or (2) the difference in fair market value between the Plaintiffs' cars as warranted and those same cars as sold. Second, the Court explained: That means that evidence of New GM's post-sale repairs is relevant to the calculation of Plaintiffs' damages and, indeed, could theoretically eliminate those damages altogether. Third, and most significantly, the Court concluded that, whether or not Plaintiffs' claims for cost-of-repair damages could survive New GM's motion, Plaintiffs' claims for difference-in-value' damages could not because Plaintiffs' sole evidence of such damages, the expert testimony of Stefan Boedeker was insufficient as a matter of Bellwether State law to establish the existence of damages, an essential element of any such claim. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of three aspects of the Court's summary judgment Opinion and Order. First, Plaintiffs challenge the Court's conclusion that, under California law, benefit-of-the-bargain damages may be mitigated, including through post-sale recalls and repairs. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Texas law does not allow complete mitigation of benefit-of-the-bargain damages sustained by plaintiffs whose products manifested defects. Third, and most significantly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to reverse its holding that the evidence, in particular, Boedeker's expert analysis is insufficient as a matter of law to establish benefit-of-the-bargain damages based on a difference in value. The California Plaintiffs assert that they would not receive a windfall if the Court were to adopt their position regarding post-sale mitigation. The California Plaintiffs also assert that an alternative construction of the damages model, posited by another expert, Dr. Joshua Gans, would be consistent with the theory of harm that between purchase and recall purchasers of at-issue vehicles were driving around at a greater degree of risk. These arguments fail, the Court opines. For one thing, the California Plaintiffs did not rely on Dr. Gans' alternative construction of damages in their earlier motion, and any such argument is therefore waived. The California Plaintiffs cite no cases holding that plaintiffs may recover damages for a risk of physical harm that did not materialize, let alone that such risk can be characterized as economic loss. To the extent that the California Plaintiffs now assert that they actually experienced diminished performance of their vehicles and that such injuries cannot be mitigated by later repairs, their arguments falter for same reasons that the arguments of the Texas Plaintiffs to which the Court turns next falter. In short, the Court is unpersuaded that it committed any error when it ruled that, under California law, a plaintiff's duty to avoid or mitigate damages means that post-sale repairs are relevant to the calculation of benefit-of-the-bargain damages. * Mitigation of Plaintiffs' Injuries Under Texas Law Plaintiffs devote a mere paragraph in their opening brief to their next argument: that the Court erred in holding that Texas law (1) measures damages by the lesser of cost of repair or the difference in fair market value and (2) does not permit benefit-of-the-bargain damages where a defendant has repaired a defective vehicle. Putting aside whether Plaintiffs' scant briefing is adequate to raise their argument, the Court opines that the argument falls short for two independent reasons. First, as New GM contends, this theory of damages is new and, thus, was waived. The Texas Plaintiffs contend that, throughout this litigation, they have asserted claims for the difference in value between dangerously defective cars unwittingly purchased and cars without known safety defects and that such claims encompass damages from performance problems associated with the defects. Second, and in any event, Plaintiffs' argument falls short on its own terms. For starters, Plaintiffs' new theory is entirely unsupported by expert evidence. Boedeker's testimony and model Plaintiffs' sole evidence for their damages model focus on Plaintiffs' willingness to pay at the point of sale and do not distinguish among Plaintiffs based on the nature or frequency of manifestation of defects. And, more fundamentally, as the Court previously held, no plaintiff can recover benefit-of-the-bargain damages under Texas law unless a defect manifests. In sum, Plaintiffs provide no reason to reconsider the Court's ruling with respect to mitigation of damages under Texas law either. * Sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Difference-in-Value Evidence That leaves Plaintiffs' most significant challenge to the Court's ruling. In the Opinion and Order, the Court held that, under each Bellwether State's law, the diminution in value caused by a vehicle's alleged hidden defect is calculated as the difference between the market value of a non-defective vehicle for which the plaintiff bargained and the market value of the vehicle had the defect been disclosed. In order to prove market value, then, a party must present evidence of both willingness to pay and willingness to sell. Applying these principles, the Court held that Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim for diminution-in-value damages under each Bellwether State's law. As the Court noted, to support their theory of damages, Plaintiffs relied only on Boedeker's conjoint analysis, which measures consumer desires by asking survey respondents about their relative preferences for certain combinations of product features and uses their responses to estimate the amount that consumers would be willing to pay for a vehicle with a particular defect that was fully disclosed. Noting that other courts had rejected conjoint analyses in similar circumstances, the Court held that Boedeker's conjoint analysis is insufficient evidence of diminution in value because it focuses entirely on consumers' willingness to pay and ignores producers' willingness to sell. Without any evidence of the shape of the supply curve, the Court held, no reasonable jury could determine the price at which the supply and demand curves for vehicles with a known defect intersect let alone conclude that the price would be lower than the one Plaintiffs paid, resulting in damages. Plaintiffs' arguments for reconsideration fall short, the Court finds. Accordingly, the Court denies in its entirety the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uy9a5vw from Leagle.com The case is IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Actions. Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.). Teleso Satele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Carlota Onofre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski -elaine@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Major A. Langer , Perona, Langer, Beck & Lallande, Mark P. Robinson, Jr. , Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Scot D. Wilson , Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, 19 Corporate Plaza Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, pro hac vice, Jason Allen Zweig -jasonz@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt - sean@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Devora Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Charles Girard - dgirard@girardsharp.com - Girard Sharp LLP, pro hac vice, David K. Stein - ds@classlawgroup.com - Girard Gibbs Llp, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs - ehg@classlawgroup.com - Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo & Scott M. Grzenczyk - smg@girardgibbs.com - Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice. General Motors LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan Michael Scott - bscott@klestadt.com - Klestadt, Winters, Jureller, Southard & Stevens LLP. Hendrick Co Automotive LLC, ADR Provider, represented by James R. Figliulo - jfigliulo@fslegal.com - Figliulo & Silverman, P.C., Peter A. Silverman , Figeroux & Associates, 26 Court Street, Suite 701, Brooklyn, New York 11201, pro hac vice & Stephanie D. Jones , Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., 5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Troy, MI 48098 pro hac vice. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Leslie Suit Over Toxic EtO Emissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Leslie, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., STERIS ISOMEDIX OPERATIONS, INC., COSMED GROUP, INC., and VANTAGE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01654 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for the increased risk of cancer they have allegedly caused to individuals living and working in the vicinity of their medical sterilization facilities as a result of toxic ethylene oxide emissions into the community. While ethylene oxide ("EtO") has been classified as a human carcinogen since 1994, and its carcinogenic and mutagenic properties have been well documented in studies since at least the mid-1980s, Medline, Steris, Cosmed, and Vantage disregarded ethylene oxide's harmful properties and continued to release it into the surrounding communities--entirely unbeknownst to area residents and workers, according to the complaint. Self-reported emission estimates from these facilities indicate high levels of ethylene oxide release. The combined ethylene oxide emissions from these facilities have reached as high as 13,000 pounds per year. While some EtO emissions are from controlled sources, the majority of these emission estimates are "fugitive emissions" that have been escaping, and continue to escape, the facility. Initial air monitoring tests commissioned by the Lake County Health Department, the Village of Gurnee, and the City of Waukegan demonstrate the widespread nature of the Defendants' ethylene oxide pollution. The tests show the presence of toxic ethylene oxide gas as far as 4.5 miles from the Medline facility and 4 miles from the Vantage facility--significantly further than previously suspected. Due to Defendants' emissions of ethylene oxide from both the Waukegan Facility and the Gurnee Facility into the Lake County community, Plaintiff Leslie, like many other residents of Lake County, unknowingly lived with and inhaled carcinogenic ethylene oxide for years, says the complaint. As a result, individuals living and working near these EtO-emitting facilities face some of the highest long-term cancer risks in the United States. These individuals have been inhaling ethylene oxide on a routine and continuous basis for decades. Now they are suffering from a variety of cancers, miscarriages, birth defects, and other life-altering health effects from continuous exposure to ethylene oxide, the Plaintiff alleges. Plaintiff Daniel Leslie has been a resident of Lake County since 1994. Medline, Steris, Cosmed, and Vantage are industrial users and polluters of ethylene oxide gas in Illinois. Medline, Steris, and Cosmed are industrial medical sterilizers, and Vantage is a chemical producer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Iman Boundaoui, Esq. Michael Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com iboundaoui@edelson.com movca@edelson.com MEL DAWSON INC: Faces Duval Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mel Dawson, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Duval, On behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Mel Dawson, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00276862-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 5, 2020). The case type is stated as "Other Employment--Civil Unlimited." Mel Dawson, Inc. distributes petroleum products. The Company offers bulk fuels, lubricants, oil, and other petroleum products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Angelia Johnson, Anne Wall, and Russell Bond, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00113 (E.D. Tex., March 6, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 23, 2019, MCM sent Plaintiff Johnson a collection letter. On April 3, 2019, MCM sent Plaintiff Wall a collection letter. On March 7, 2019, MCM sent Plaintiff Bond a collection letter. The letters goes on to list the following: "Option 1: 40% OFF; Option 2: 20% OFF; and Option 3: Monthly Payments As Low As $50 per month." These letters, although attempting to appear as special offers, offer the exact same deal. Not only did each the Plaintiffs receive identical offers multiple times, but the Plaintiffs' offers are identical to each other. MCM purports its offer as a special opportunity, only offered for this one period of time, on this one offer. The Plaintiffs say this language implies a sense of finality and urgency of the offer. The Defendants market the settlements in a way that suggests that the offer is uniquely superior to any other offer, even though it is identical to previous offers, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs contend that this language would lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that these were one-time-only offers. In actuality, MCM's offer was in no way a time sensitive opportunity. The Plaintiffs suffered actual harm by being the target of the MCM's misleading debt collection communications, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons currently residing in the state of Texas. MCM is in the business of the collection of debts in Texas and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samantha J. Orlowski, Esq. Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. Gregory M. Klote, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 451-1314 Fax: (314) 787-4323 Email: sam@hklawstl.com joel@hklawstl.com greg@hklawstl.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Vaknin Files FCDPA Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Asher Vaknin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Encore Capital Group, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02344 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management is a debt collection agency that helps consumers pay off overdue debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J Goldstein, Esq. Amir J Goldstein Law Offices 7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com MISSOURI: Class Settlement in M.B. Case Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, has granted final approval of the class settlement in the case captioned M.B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jennifer Tidball, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04102-NKL. (W.D. Mo.). The case was commenced against the Missouri Department of Social Services and its directors, Steven Corsi, Jennifer Tidball and Tim Decker. The Court held that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and meets all other requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uunmcxy from Leagle.com M. B., by and through Next Friend, Ericka Eggemeyer, K. C., by and through Next Friend, Kris Dadant & A. H., by and through Next Friend, Kealey Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Finch , Children's Rights, 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice, Daniele Gerard , pro hac vice, Danielle Rosenthal , pro hac vice, Elizabeth Pitman Gretter , 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice, Erin McGuinness , Children's Rights, 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice, Freya Pitts - fpitts@youthlaw.org - National Center for Youth Law, pro hac vice, Jonathan King , pro hac vice, Leecia Welch , pro hac vice, Michael Sara Bartosz , Children's Rights, Inc., 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice, Poonam Juneja - pjuneja@youthlaw.org - pro hac vice, Scott T. Schutte - scott.schutte@morganlewis.com, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Andrew Dixon , pro hac vice & John J. Ammann , St. Louis University Legal Clinic. Steven Corsi, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services & Tim Decker, in his official capacity as Director of the Children's Division, Defendants, represented by Eileen Ruppe Krispin , Missouri Attorney General's Office, Melanie Pennycuff , Missouri Attorney General's Office, pro hac vice & Scotty L. Allen , Missouri Department of Transportation. MOM365 INC: Class Settlement in Hoover Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Troy Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned KELLY HOOVER, Plaintiff, v. MOM365, INC., a Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01328-TLN-CKD. (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed the putative class action on May 19, 2017 in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Sacramento. Defendant Mom365, Inc. removed the action to the California District Court on June 29, 2017. The First Amended Complaint against Defendant alleges class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for failure to provide legally compliant rest periods; failure to pay wages for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide Paid Time Off benefits in violation of California Labor Code section 227.3; failure to provide Paid Time Off benefits that complied with the California Healthy Workplace Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Cal. Lab. Code sections 245, et seq.); failure to pay all wages due or owed at termination; and failure to provide legally complaint wage statements. Plaintiff also alleged unfair competition claims based on these allegations. Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies on the PAGA claims as detailed in the Motion. Defendant denied all of Plaintiff's claims and denied that the case was appropriate for class treatment. Subsequently, the parties agreed to a PAGA and class settlement. Defendant will provide monetary consideration in exchange for a judgment consistent with the terms of the proposed settlement as set forth in the Joint Stipulation Regarding Class Action Settlement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"). The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May 10, 2019. Upon further review, the Court enters final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that certification of the following class for settlement purposes only is appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and related case law: All of Defendant's California employees who were paid under Defendant's commission, piece rate, and/or incentive-based compensation system, including but not limited to, employees working under the photographer job title from May 17, 2013 to May 14, 2019. The Court further finds that the settlement class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The approximately 1,430 individuals who fall within the class are sufficiently numerous and would make joinder impractical. Moreover, the commonality and predominance requirements are met since there are questions of law and fact common to the class and that predominate over individualized issues, which include the following alleged policies and practices: the failure of Defendant's commission, piece rate, and/or incentive based compensation system to pay for all hours worked; the failure to provide paid rest periods; the failure to provide rest periods for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof; the failure to provide a legally compliant PTO policy; and the failure to provide legally compliant wage statements. The Court approves payment of a PAGA Penalty of $10,000 to be deducted from the Settlement Amount, with $7,500 of that amount to be distributed to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and $2,500 to be distributed to Qualified Claimants by adding that sum to the Net Settlement Amount to be distributed on a pro rata basis pursuant to the Agreement. The Court also approves the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Court awards Class Counsel $100,000 in attorneys' fees and $9,049.32 in litigation expenses, and awards Simpluris, Inc., $18,004 in administration fees. The amounts are to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the terms and timeframe set forth in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vbu89hc from Leagle.com Kelly Hoover, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda - attorney@shimodalaw.com - Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul Rodriguez - jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com - Shimoda Law Corp. MOM365, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Cheng-dcheng@fordharrison.com - Ford Harrison LLP & Michelle Brauer Abidoye - mabidoye@fordharrison.com - Ford & Harrison LLP. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Mislabels Vanilla Energy Drink, Budhani Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- AKASH BUDHANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSTER BEVERAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01409 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its vanilla energy drink products. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells espresso energy drinks blended with European milk and purporting to be flavored with vanilla under their Monster brand. The Products are available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and the Defendant's website and Amazon.com and are sold in cans of 8.4 OZ. The relevant front representations include "Vanilla Cream," "Triple Shot," and an image of the vanilla flower. The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representation as "Vanilla Cream" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains non-vanilla flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean, yet these flavors are not disclosed to consumers as required and expected. Monster Beverage Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, markets and distributes energy drinks. Monster Beverage serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd Ste 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 MORTGAGE LENDERS: Charbonneau Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BEAU CHARBONNEAU, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. MORTGAGE LENDERS OF AMERICA L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02062-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying these Loan Officer and Team Lead Rule 23 classes: Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA) Unpaid Wages Class (Loan Officers): "all persons employed by Defendant MLOA as Loan Officers, and other individuals who originated loan products with similar job titles, within the State of Kansas at any time between February 5, 2013 -- March 1, 2019"; KWPA Wage Deductions Class (Loan Officers & Team Leads): "all persons employed by Defendant MLOA as Team Leads, Loan Officers, and other individuals who originated loan products with similar job titles, within the State of Kansas at any time between February 5, 2013 – March 1, 2019"; Kansas Breach of Contract Loan Officers Class (Loan Officers): "all persons employed by Defendant MLOA as Loan Officers, and other individuals who originated loan products with similar job titles, within the State of Kansas at any time between February 5, 2013 -- March 1, 2019"; and Kansas Breach of Contract Team Leads Class (Team Leads): "all persons employed by Defendant MLOA as Team Leads, Loan Officers, and other individuals who originated loan products with similar job titles, within the State of Kansas at any time between February 5, 2013 – March 1, 2019"; 2. appointing Beau Charbonneau as class representative; and 3. appointing Davis George Mook LLC as class counsel. According to the complaint, Mortgage Lenders of America LLC, Phillip Kneibert, and Brad Ives directed their entire loan origination workforce to forward their work phones to their cell phones when leaving the office and to set up their cell phones to receive their work emails to ensure they were available "24/7" to capture deals and increase MLOA's profitability. The problem is, despite these uniform policies, MLOA also had a uniform policy of refusing to pay for this work. MLOA's refusal to pay legally required overtime resulted in a Department of Labor audit and sizeable settlement during the class period. That audit, however, did nothing to dissuade MLOA from continuing its unlawful pay practices. MLOA also systematically deprived its hardworking Loan Officers and Team Leads of wages pursuant to uniform pay policies which unlawfully deducted credit report costs and appraisal fees from these employees' earned wages. Mortgage Lenders is a financial services company that provides online mortgage lending services, headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Tracey F. George, Esq. Brett A. Davis, Esq. Tracey F. George, Esq. DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC 1600 Genessee St., Suite 328 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: 816-569-2629 Facsimile: 816-447-3939 E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com brett@dgmlawyers.com www.dgmlawyers.com MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Certification of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as EFRAT MASSRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties will move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying the case to proceed as a class action; and 2. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement, on behalf of the following class: "all persons to whom MJRF sent an initial collection letter to an address in Kings County, New York August 13, 2018 to August 13, 2019, where such letter was sent to collect a debt allegedly owed to Lenox Hill Hospital and all its component entities (collectively, "Lenox") containing the following language "In the event that you do not dispute the amount shown above and if you feel that you have coverage through an insurance carrier, please complete the below form and return to us." Mullooly Jeffrey was founded in 1962. The company's line of business includes providing full service legal advice.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 3701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com Attorney for the Defendant is: Robert Arleo, Esq. ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C. 380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: 1-888-646-0055 E-mail: RArleoESq@gmail.com NEW OOKI SUSHI: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Tian Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hua Tian, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NEW OOKI SUSHI, INC., d/b/a Ooki Sushi Japanese Cuisine & Bar, XIN SHU LIU, a/k/a "John" Liu, JOHN KE, and "JOHN DOE", Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-01950 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and implementing New York Codes, Rules and Regulations arising from their various unlawful employment practices, polices and patterns, including failing to properly pay their employees. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA, NYLL, and NYCRR by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees minimum wages for each hour worked, overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek, and spread-of-hours for all hours worked in excess of 10 in each workday, says the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to record all the time that the Plaintiff has worked. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person by the Defendants. NEW OOKI SUSHI INC., d/b/a Ooki Sushi Japanese Cuisine & Bar, operates a restaurant located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo R. Morel, Esq. 39-15 Main Street, Suite 318 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (454) 362-8960 Email: Esquire1998@gmail.com OLERO INC: Certification of Rule 23 Classes Sought in Bruger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPAN BRUGER and DMYTRO BRUGER, v. OLERO, INC, EMB GROUP, INC., OLEG ROMANYUK, EUGENY MINOCHKIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-02277 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23: Count I -- Civil Conspiracy: "all persons who have worked for Defendant companies as truck drivers and truck driver trainees in Illinois or otherwise have driven Defendant companies', their predecessors', successors', subsidiaries' and/or affiliated companies' trucks at any time during the relevant statutory period, and who entered into an Independent Contractor agreement individually or on behalf of another entity, and personally provided freight cargo transportation services pursuant to that Agreement for Defendant companies and who have not been classified as employees of Defendant companies"; and Count II -- Equitable Remedies pursuant to Unjust Enrichment. "all persons who have worked for Defendant companies as truck drivers and truck driver trainees in Illinois or otherwise have driven Defendant companies', their predecessors', successors', subsidiaries' and/or affiliated companies' trucks at any time during the relevant statutory period, and personally provided freight cargo transportation services pursuant to that Agreement for Defendant companies and who have not been classified as employees of Defendant companies", against whom the Individual Defendants, on behalf of themselves and their Defendant companies, committed Civil Conspiracy to violate the IWPCA." This lawsuit was brought by Plaintiffs as a class action on behalf of an estimated 250 putative class members-truck drivers, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Olero is a transportation/trucking/railroad company. EMB was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of prefabricated wood buildings.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiffs are: Julia Bikbova, Esq. BIKBOVA LAW OFFICES, P.C. 666 Dundee Road, Suite 1604 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 730-1800 E-mail: julia@bikbovalaw.com OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Stirling Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned ROBERT STIRLING, Plaintiff, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8647 (JPO). (S.D.N.Y.). The action was commenced with the filing of a securities class action complaint against Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc., as well as several of its officers and directors. That same day, in accordance with the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), Plaintiff caused to be published a notice in Business Wire advising putative class members of the pendency of the action. In response, six timely motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed. Under the PSLRA, the Court is to appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the putative class that is or are the most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The PSLRA establishes a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice (2) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Here, there are only two movants still vying for lead plaintiff status. Both Bernard Maloney and Nathan Severe seek recovery for the decline in the price of Ollie's securities, which is the same recovery sought by all class members. Thus, Maloney and Severe's claims are typical. Next, adequacy is met if (1) class counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation (2) there is no conflict between the proposed lead plaintiff and the members of the class and (3) the proposed lead plaintiff has a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy. Here, Maloney and Severe's significant financial losses provide adequate incentive to vigorously represent the class claims. Nor is there any evidence of conflict between their interests and the interests of the class. Thus, the Court granted the motions of movant Bernard L. Maloney, III and movant Nathan Severe to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have their choice of counsel approved. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rtgul8j from Leagle.com Bernard L. Maloney, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig- jasonz@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Nathan Severe, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Enrico Guarnero - mguarnero@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard LLP & Laurence Jesse Hasson - Lhasson@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP. Robert Stirling, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy - LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Daniel Riordan, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole - nespole@whafh.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Bruce Elder, Movant, represented by Timothy John MacFall - tjm@rigrodskylong.com - Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Jinjin Chai, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim – pkim@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm. Ronald Jackson, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc., Mark Butler, Jay Stasz & John Swygert, Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes – jonathan.polkes@weil.com - Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Stacy Nettleton- stacey.nettleton@weil.com - Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Irisa Chen , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 225 Cadman Plz E Rm 415, N Brooklyn, NY, 11201-1832. PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Settlement in Reyes Suit Wins Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order granting class certification in the class action lawsuit styled as Jesus Reyes v. Paul F. Pedersen Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04163 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2019). The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 25, 2020, a joint motion for preliminary approval of the parties' joint stipulation and agreement to settle class action and other claims and for approval of class certification is granted. Parties are directed to send an amended proposed Order and copy of the notice to the court's proposed order email box. Fairness hearing to be set in a later entry. Pedersen specializes in providing commercial landscaping services.[CC] PAYCOR INC: Johns Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kellin Johns, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paycor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-L-114, was transferred from Madison County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 11, 2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-RJD. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud. Paycor Inc. Paycor, Inc. develops software. The Company provides cloud-based onboarding, human resources, payroll, and timekeeping software to small and medium-sized companies. Paycor serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. Stephan Zouras LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 233-1550 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM MORLOK, ADAM NOVICK, THEODORE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:17-cv-04213-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying and maintaining the case as a class action on behalf of the following class: "all persons who applied for and were granted a reserved and designated electric vehicle parking space within the City of Philadelphia pursuant to Philadelphia City Ordinance Section 12-1131, before it was amended effective April 20, 2017." The lawsuit arises out of the City's wrongful conduct with respect to the retroactive elimination of the Plaintiffs' designated and exclusively reserved electric vehicle parking places. Philadelphia is Pennsylvania's largest city.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Stephan Matanovic, Esq. BAILEY DUQUETTE P.C. 399 Market Street, Suite 360 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 915-7978 E-mail: stephan@baileyduquette.com - and - Sean P. Whalen, Esq. VINTAGE LAW LLC 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000 Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (484) 416-3207 E-mail: sw@vintage-law.com PLYMOUTH ROCK: Motion to Reconsider in MSP Recovery Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC and SERIES 17-04-631, Plaintiffs, v. PLYMOUTH ROCK ASSURANCE CORPORATION, INC., and THE PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-11702-ADB, (D. Mass.). MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC and Series 17-04-631, commenced the putative class action against Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation, Inc. and Plymouth Rock Company, Inc., under the Medicare Second Payer Act (MSPA) as the assignee of a Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO). Plymouth Rock moved to dismiss the lawsuit and to strike the proposed class allegations. In July 2019, the Court denied Plymouth Rock's motion to dismiss, but granted the motion to strike. First, the Court found that the proposed class was overbroad, as it would include plaintiffs with time-barred claims. Second, the Court found that the proposed class was a fail-safe class, meaning that potential class members were essentially required to own rights to a claim for which Plymouth Rock was liable. Finally, the Court determined that Plaintiffs could not demonstrate that questions of law or fact common to class members would predominate. In August 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the Order. Plaintiffs argue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) that the Court should reconsider its Order because: (1) Plaintiffs have a software program that will resolve the individualized inquiries necessary to determine class membership; and (2) the Plaintiffs could revise the class allegations to address the Court's concerns regarding the proposed fail-safe class. Neither argument presents the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court finds. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' newly proposed class is both untimely and a fail-safe class. Further, Plaintiffs' proposed software, which would identify instances in which Plymouth Rock reported a settlement to CMS, would not address the Court's concerns regarding the individualized and fact-specific inquiries necessary to determine class membership. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rg3s83y from Leagle.com MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, A Delaware entity, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Ferraro , The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., 600 Brickell Ave Ste 3800, Miami, Florida 33131, pro hac vice, Janpaul Portal , The Ferraro Law Firm, 600 Brickell Ave Ste 3800, Miami, Florida 33131, pro hac vice, David A. Jagolinzer , The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., 600 Brickell Ave Ste 3800, Miami, Florida 33131& Walter Kelley , Kelley Bernheim Dolinsky, LLC, 4 Court Street, Plymouth, MA 02360 Series, A series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Ferraro , The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Janpaul Portal , The Ferraro Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard D. Meadow , The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, David A. Jagolinzer , The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A. & Walter Kelley , Kelley Bernheim Dolinsky, LLC. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation, Inc., A Massachusetts entity & The Plymouth Rock Company, Inc., A Massachusetts entity, Defendants, represented by John J. Cloherty, III - jcloherty@piercedavis.com - Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. PRIORITY IMPORTS: Court Dismisses Galloway Suit Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned RENEE GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. PRIORITY IMPORTS RICHMOND, LLC, d/b/a PRIORITY TOYOTA RICHMOND, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-209. (E.D. Va.). Renee Galloway bought a new car from Priority Toyota Richmond, LLC in May 2018. A few weeks later, Priority forced her to come back to the dealership and choose between agreeing to higher interest rates or returning her car. Galloway has sued Priority for violating federal and state consumer protection laws. On March 26, 2019, Galloway sued Priority for violating federal and state consumer protection laws. She alleges (1) a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); (2) a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA); (3) fraud; (4) a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA); (5) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (6) conversion; and (7) a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Priority has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, to compel arbitration. Following a court hearing on the matter on August 7, 2019, the Court granted the motion in part and required the parties to attend mediation before the Better Business Bureau ("BBB"). The parties did not resolve the case at mediation. On December 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss insofar as it asks the Court to compel arbitration. Galloway argues that the arbitration provision violates public policy and is unenforceable because it prohibits an arbitrator from awarding punitive damages. Galloway also asks the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Priority's intent for including the provision in its contracts. Because the Court concludes that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement that does not violate public policy, the Court grants Priority's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, and it will dismiss the case without prejudice. The Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/s57zwhb from Leagle.com Renee Galloway, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Carley Marchiando , Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes , Consumer Litigation Associates, Kevin Anthony Dillon , Consumer Litigation Associates, Leonard Anthony Bennett , Consumer Litigation Associates & Thomas Dean Domonoske , Consumer Litigation Associates, 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1 A, Newport News, VA, 23601-1533 Priority Imports Richmond, LLC, doing business as Priority Toyota Richmond, Defendant, represented by Brad Darin Weiss - brad.weiss@cwattorneys.com - Charapp & Weiss LLP & Travis Francis Salisbury , Charapp & Weiss LLP, 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000, McLean, VA 22102 RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Scipio FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Beverley S. Scipio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01987 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions provides account recovery and debt collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[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) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Saad Sues in N.D. Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Ahmad Saad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00208-A (N.D. Tex., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions provides account recovery and debt collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[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 RICHLINE GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Richline Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richline Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02199 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Richline Group, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. since 2007, is the USA's foremost Fine Jewelry Manufacturer and Marketer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ROTHMAN EVANS: Skellington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rothman Evans, P.C. The case is styled as Crystal Skellington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rothman Evans, P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-01227 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rothman Evans, P.C. in Syracuse is a full-service law firm providing legal services and specializing in family law, criminal law, and civil litigation.[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) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com RUTTER'S HOLDINGS: Palermo Sues Over Compromised Card Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan K. Palermo, individually and on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. RUTTER'S HOLDINGS, INC.; RUTTER'S, INC.; and CHR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00398-JEJ (M.D. Pa., March 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law due to the Plaintiff's payment card information being compromised by the malware infecting Rutter's payment card processing system. February 13, 2020, Rutter's issued a "Notice of Payment Card Incident" on its Web site disclosing for the first time that it discovered malware installed on its payment card processing system on January 24, 2020. Unauthorized third parties used this malware to steal payment card information, including cardholder names, card numbers, expiration dates, and internal verification codes, between at least August 30, 2018, and May 29, 2019. The Plaintiff used her payment card to make a purchase at Rutter's during this period. As a result, the Plaintiff's payment card information has been compromised and she has been placed at an immediate and continuing risk of fraud, including identity theft. The Plaintiff asserts that mitigating the actual and potential impact of the data breach will require the Plaintiff to undertake expensive and time-consuming efforts, including placing "freezes" and "alerts" with credit reporting agencies, contacting their financial institutions, closing or modifying financial accounts, and closely reviewing and monitoring their credit reports and accounts for unauthorized activity. The Plaintiff will also be required to purchase credit and identity monitoring services to alert them to potential misappropriation of their identity and to combat risk of further identity theft. At a minimum, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered compensable damages because they will be forced to incur the cost of a monitoring service which is a reasonable and necessary step to prevent and mitigate future loss, says the complaint. Plaintiff Morgan K. Palermo is a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Rutter's Holdings, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (215) 399-4770 Email: achristina@lowey.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com SEAFOLLY US: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seafolly (US), LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seafolly (US), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02188-GHW (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Seafolly (US), LLC is a swimwear company in Sydney's Bondi Beach in Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SHEPLERS INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Sheplers, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sheplers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02200 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Sheplers, Inc. retails apparels and accessories for men, women, and children. The Company offers cowboy boots, jeans, hats, outer wear, shirts, suits, and other related products. Sheplers markets its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SIGMA SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan M. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIGMA SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 2020CH02788 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks and key access systems in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, the Defendant disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. The Defendant have violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand geometry were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the Class's hand geometry, as required by the BIPA; nor Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain hand geometry, as required by the BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois. Sigma is a contract packaging and food packaging company that conducts business throughout Illinois, including in Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com SIMONMEND IMAGING: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMONMED Imaging Incorporated. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SIMONMED Imaging Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-00625-NRN (D. Colo., March 5, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SimonMed is one of the nation's largest physician-owned outpatient radiology and imaging practice.[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 SOUTHWORTH COMPANY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Matthews" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ROGER MATTHEWS and TIMOTHY GIGNILLIAT v. SOUTHWORTH COMPANY, JOHNS. LENESS, DAVID J. MIKA, and CHRIS CHILDS, Case No. 3:17-cv-30126-MGM (D. Mass.), the Court entered an order: 1. certifying this Class for settlement purposes: "all individuals who had been working for Defendant, Southworth Company at the time of its Turners Falls and Agawam plant closures on August 30,2017, who had not signed an Arbitration Agreement with Southworth"; 2. designating as class counsel the law firm of Stobierski and Connor; 3. authorizing Plaintiffs and class counsel to enter into settlement agreement on behalf of the settlement class; and 4. awarding total amount of $17,596.5 to class counsel for attorneys costs and fees incurred hy class counsel. Southworth offers a range of products including cotton, antique laid, laser, linen, and recycled business paper, cards and envelopes.[CC] SPECTRANETICS CORP: Louangamath Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on April 15, 2020 for an order: 1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 23; 2. preliminarily approving the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and Private Attorneys General Act Settlement and Release of Claims; 3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; 4. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; 5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and related forms; 6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement Class; and 7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and costs. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes its technology for interventional cardiovascular therapy.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com maralle@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Payne Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00080-JM (E.D. Ark., March 5, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and other workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant and the Defendant paid them one-and-one-half times their base hourly rate for each hour they worked over 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant, however, did not include the per diem amounts that were paid to them in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including all forms of compensation, such the "per diem" paid to the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid workers, in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pipe welder. The Defendant is an industrial construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com THURSTYHUFF INC: Pravazabojovnik Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Pravazabojovnik, on behalf of herself and others similarly on situated v. THURSTYHUFF, INC. dba PLAYGROUND LOUNGE, JASON HUFFORD, and STEPHEN THURSTON, Case No. 4:20-cv-00019-BMM (D. Mont., March 5, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid minimum wages by the Defendants, and when she worked more than 40 hours a week, she was not paid overtime pay. The Defendants' failure to properly pay its dancers according to the FLSA was willful, she contends. The Plaintiff formerly worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer. ThurstyHuff Inc. is a Montana corporation authorized to do business in the state of Montana, and operating the Playground Lounge in Cascade County, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick F. Sherwood, Esq. Anne E. Sherwood, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, P.L.L.P. 401 North Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (406) 442-3261 Email: rick@mswdlaw.com anne@mswdlaw.com TIME AFTER TIME: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Time after Time, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Time after Time, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02197 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). Time After Time is one of the best watch stores in the Philadelphia area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TIME OUT MARKET: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TIME OUT MARKET (NEW YORK), LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02064 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendants' Web site, https://www.timeoutmarket.com/newyork/, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. The Defendant operates its restaurant, as well as the Web site, and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com TOTAL CARD: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in Meco Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as KLADJI MECO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOTAL CARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00327 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Turner et al. Sue Over Brake Defect ------------------------------------------------- LAURA TURNER, and GLENN ALCARAZ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00320 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2020) is an action seeking damages for breach of warranty and for unfair and deceptive acts or practices arising from Toyota's design, manufacture, and sale of defective 2010-2015 Prius and Prius PHV, 2012-2015 Prius V, 2012-2015 Avalon Camry Hybrid, and 2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid vehicles. According to the complaint, the Defective Class Vehicles, which are manufactured and sold throughout the U.S., including from and within the State of California, are plagued by and possess a dangerous design and/or manufacturing defect in their braking systems, which defect is more specifically associated with the brake booster pump assemblies with master cylinder in the Defective Class Vehicles and cause said vehicles' braking systems to fail. The defect, which is dangerous and life threatening, directly, materially, and adversely affects the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' use and enjoyment of the Defective Class Vehicles, their safety, and their value. However, despite knowing about the Toyota Brake Defect for several years, and its manifest serious risk of injury or death, Toyota has been concealing it from owners, purchasers, and lessees of the Defective Class Vehicles in a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid Defendants from suffering economic losses due to resulting diminution in value or need for repair of said vehicles at Toyota's own expense, greedily placing profits ahead of consumer safety. The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased their vehicles had Toyota disclosed this dark, concealed truth regarding their inherent risk and danger, and certainly would have paid substantially less for said vehicles in any event. Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices, and concealment of known, significant defects, has caused the Plaintiffs and Class Members who purchased or leased the Defective Class Vehicles to have suffered damages and have otherwise caused them harm, including, but not limited to, ascertainable loss of money or loss of value of the purchased vehicles. Toyota's conduct is not only unfair and deceptive, it is also egregious under the circumstances. Toyota Motor Corporation manufactures, sells, leases, and repairs passenger cars, trucks, buses, and their related parts worldwide. The Company also operates financing services through their subsidiaries. Toyota Motor builds homes, produces pleasure boats, and develops intelligent transportation systems including radar cruise control and electronic toll collection systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 830 Apollo St. Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 - and - Duncan C. Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 Facsimile: (206) 621-9686 TRANSCANADA USA: Harbaum Seeks to Certify Class of Inspectors ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ERNIE HARBAUM, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSCANADA USA SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00844 (S.D. Va., Feb. 27, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification and authorizing notice be sent to: "all Inspectors employed by, or working on behalf of, TransCanada who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime at any time in the past three years (the Day Rate Inspectors)"; 2. approving the notice and consent forms; 3. authorizing his proposed notice methods; 4. directing TransCanada to produce each Day Rate Inspector's contact information to Class Counsel within 10 days; and 5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Day Rate Inspectors to join the case. Transcanada USA operates as a energy company. The company produces and supplies energy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@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 - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. James S. Nelson, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: 304-346-2889 Facsimile: 304-346-2895 TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Bid for Class Certification Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (MSPERS), INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632 N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Judge Robert M. Dow entered an order on granting MSPERS's motion for class certification of: "all persons and entities who purchased TreeHouse Foods, Inc. common stock on the open market between January 20, 2016, and November 2, 2016, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." The Court said, "Using inflation to determine plaintiffs' out-of-pocket losses is a common methodology in securities fraud cases such as this, and the limitations Defendants identify are not unique to this case and need not be resolved before the class is certified. E.g., Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 439, 451 (W.D. Tex. 2019); In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Securities Litigation, 2017 WL 2039171, at 15 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2017); In re Intuitive Surgical, 2016 WL 7425926 at 17; Hatamian, 2016 WL 1042502, at 9-10; see also [138-5, 18–25, 35 ("In virtually every securities fraud case, there is expert analysis and dispute regarding whether and to what extent the artificial inflation may have evolved over the class period.")] And the mere fact that the plaintiffs may ultimately offer ambiguous or unconvincing evidence is not reason to deny certification. Schleicher, 618 F.3d at 687. Thus, the issues regarding inflation do not preclude certification." The Court rejected each of Defendants' arguments that MSPERS was subject to unique defenses and therefore an inadequate lead plaintiff and that the proposed damages model was insufficient. The certified class includes investors who purchased TreeHouse Foods, Inc. common stock between January 20 and November 2, 2016. Defendants argued that MSPERS was inadequate as a lead plaintiff because it relied on an investment manager for its investment decisions. As the Court noted, this is a common practice and it is quite likely that other investors also relied on the advice of third parties. The Court also found that the investment manager's purchase of additional stock after the corrective disclosure in November 2016 does not indicate that the advisor did not rely on the market price of the common stock. The Court also recognized that MSPERS was an adequate lead plaintiff, in part because it is the "'exact type of sophisticated institutional investor that Congress intended to lead securities class actions under the PSLRA.'" The Court rebuffed Defendants' attacks on MSPERS's representatives, finding that they illustrated a preparedness to participate in discovery and "testified in detail about the specifics of the alleged fraud and [MSPERS'] investment in this case." The small points of discrepancy in their testimony did not prevent them from serving as lead plaintiff. The Court also found that Lead Plaintiff's financial expert (Chad Coffman) properly found that damages were subject to common proof. The Court recognized that the "out of pocket" calculation method based on an event study has been widely adopted, and that Mr. Coffman's reports in particular have been accepted on class certification dozens of times. The Court also rejected Defendants' argument that Mr. Coffman inadequately addressed the level of inflation in the price of common stock during the class period, noting that Defendants "do not cite a single case where class certification was denied because of limitations in the proposed inflation formula." On February 12, 2018, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss in respect to PERS's consolidated complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, United States District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan found that defendants made material misstatements and the allegations presented in the complaint support "a reasonable belief as to the misleading nature of the statements or omissions" and that defendants "knew the statements were false or misleading." MSPERS is an institutional investor that purchased TreeHouse common stock. TreeHouse produces packaged foods for stores' "private labels" that is, it makes grocery stores' off-brand products.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Underpays Insurance Agents, Brenner Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BRENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00414 (D. Col., Feb. 18, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Brenner was employed by the Defendant as insurance agent. United Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health services to subscribers or members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Lewis, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: plewis@lks.law mkuhn@lks.law aswan@lks.law UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Stephens Suit Transferred to E.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kay Stephens, an individual, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Services Automobile Association, a Texas reciprocal inter insurance exchange and CCC Information Services Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, was transferred from the Superior County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on March 11, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00097-TOR. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance. The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal inter-insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Cameron, Esq. Cameron Sutherland PLLC 421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 315-4507 Fax: (509) 315-4584 Email: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com - and - Christopher Michael Hogue, Esq. Hogue Law Firm 1106 N Washington St., Suite B Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 252-5058 Email: chris@spokaneadvocate.com - and – Kirk D Miller, Esq. Kirk D Miller PS 421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 413-1494 Fax: (509) 413-1724 Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com The Defendant United Services Automobile Association is represented by: James Raymond Morrison, Esq. Baker Hostetler 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 332-1108 Fax: (206) 623-0234 Email: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Compel Deposition in Ingham Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-821 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Ryan T. Holte of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Determination that Certain Documents Produced in Discovery are not Privileged or Subject to the Work Product Doctrine; (2) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; (3) denied the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; (4) denied the Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Expert Report that Rely Solely upon Privileged Material; and (5) denied the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs Ingham, Bay Regional Medical Center, McLaren Northern Michigan, Gifford Medical Center, Inc., and Lakewood Health System, allege the United States, acting through the Secretary of the Department of Defense ("DoD") in his official capacity as operator of TRICARE, underpaid them for medical services they administered through the TRICARE program. TRICARE is a military health care system that provides medical and dental care for current and former members of the military and their dependents. TRICARE Management Activity ("TMA"), a field office in the Defense Department, managed and oversaw TRICARE. Hospitals providing TRICARE services are reimbursed according to DoD guidelines. In 2001, the TRICARE statute was amended to require DoD to use Medicare reimbursement rules when reimbursing outside healthcare providers, which DoD was not previously required to do. At the time, adopting Medicare reimbursement rules was impractical for TRICARE due to the lack of TRICARE cost report data comparable to Medicare's. In 2005, DoD issued a Final Rule, which provided a more detailed explanation of the payment rules for hospital-based outpatient services. A group of hospitals ("400 Hospitals") complained that CMAC was only intended to be used for individual health care providers, not institutions with large overhead costs. The 400 Hospitals are a separate, but similarly situated group of hospitals as the Plaintiffs in the present case, who seek to represent a group of approximately 1,610 hospitals. In response to hospital complaints, TRICARE hired a consulting firm, Kennell and Associates, to undertake a study of the accuracy of its payments to the hospitals. Due to the Kennell study findings, DoD created a discretionary payment process, and on April 25, 2011, DoD notified TRICARE hospitals by letter of the process which allowed hospitals to request a review of their TRICARE reimbursements. The Plaintiffs submitted requests for discretionary payment, and TRICARE provided written responses. The Plaintiffs are a group of hospitals, separate from the 400 Hospitals, that provide medical services as part of the TRICARE program. On Oct. 21, 2013, the Plaintiffs brought the action claiming the government underpaid them for medical services they provided between Aug. 1, 2003 and May 1, 2009. They allege the underpayment breached two contracts and violated various statutory and regulatory provisions. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 1,610 similarly situated hospitals, separate from the 400 Hospitals. On Oct. 21, 2013, the Plaintiffs initiated the litigation. Between June and October 2018, the Plaintiffs served the government with various requests for production of documents. In response, the government produced around 380,000 pages of documents and compiled a privilege log with 2,500 entries. The Plaintiffs now request the Court determine whether two documents and three emails the government produced during discovery are privileged. The Court refers to each document individually as follows: "Document One"; "Document Two"; "Email One"; "Email Two"; and "Email Three." The government produced the documents in question through various discovery productions between Sept. 20, 2018 and April 9, 2019. Government counsel is unsure how Document One and Document Two were produced but explains the documents were likely mis-coded in the government's document management database as non-privileged. The government marked Document One in its privilege log at least 16 times and Document Two at least 12 times, but both documents were inadvertently produced to the Plaintiffs. Document One and Document Two were contained in a group of documents attached to an email which was marked privileged, but the attachments were not secondarily marked. The government marked Email One twice in its privilege log, but Email One did not receive consistent privilege treatment over the course of the government's many productions, and it was produced twice to the Plaintiffs. Email Two and Email Three were never marked privileged and were produced by the government. Pending before the Court are five motions: (1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Determination that Certain Documents Produced in Discovery are not Privileged or Subject to the Work Product Doctrine; (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; (3) the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; (4) the Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Expert Report that Rely Solely upon Privileged Material; and (5) the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike. The Court held oral argument on these motions on Oct. 7, 2019. Judge Holte granted (1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Determination that Certain Documents Produced in Discovery are not Privileged or Subject to the Work Product Doctrine; and (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony. He denied (1) the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; (2) the Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Expert Report that Rely Solely upon Privileged Material; and (3) the Defendant's Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike. The Court finds that Document One and Document Two's calculations relate to the government's business during the discretionary payment process and were part of a business decision prepared to provide extrapolated calculations regardless of litigation threat. Like the insurance context, if an insurer anticipates litigation and takes extra investigatory steps to ensure a correct decision, the documents are produced for use in evaluating claim fulfillment and not subject to work product protection. Therefore, both documents are not subject to work product protection. The Court also finds that when Email One, Email Two, and Email Three were created, the government's primary focus was recalculating TRICARE payments, which became the government's business during the discretionary payment process. The parties exchanged emails to identify discrepancies in the recalculation process, and any additional research conducted in order to arrive at a correct decision was a negotiated business settlement. The three emails only contain discretionary payment analysis and no attorney mental impressions for preparation of the government's case. Therefore, the three emails are not subject to work product protection. The Court does not address the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments regarding waiver of the work product doctrine and exceptional circumstances regarding justification of their disclosure. As his Order is filed under seal pursuant to the protective order in the case and motions containing arguments of privilege and attorney work product, the parties will meet and confer to discuss unsealing all motions and exhibits, or other reasons for related pleadings on these motions to remain sealed. Additionally, the parties will discuss the need for further discovery, including deposition of Christina Witsberger, and a proposed schedule for all discovery and motions extended by the Court's Aug. 29, 2019 order. In January 2020, the parties was to file a joint status report addressing: (1) the unsealing of pleadings and exhibits related to the motions in the Order; and (2) a proposed schedule for remaining discovery and motions extended by the Court's Aug. 29, 2019 order. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/wHlZC9 from Leagle.com. INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, BAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, MCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN, GIFFORD MEDICAL CENTER, INC. & LAKEWOOD HEALTH SYSTEM, for themselves, and on behalf of 1,700 hospitals, as a class, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander John Pires, Jr., Pires Cooley. USA, Defendant, represented by Anna Bondurant Eley, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division (G). UNITED STATES: Calif. CBP Detainees Class in Doe Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRISTIAN DOE, DIANA DOE, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; et al., Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2119-DMS (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Petitioners' motion for class certification. Petitioners Cristian and Diana Doe and their five children fled their home country of Guatemala in April of 2019. While traveling through Mexico, the Petitioners and their children were threatened at gun point, assaulted, robbed, and stripped of their clothing. Upon reaching the United States, the Petitioners immediately requested asylum. Pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols Program ("MPP" or "Remain in Mexico"), a program instituted in January of 2019, the Respondents returned Petitioners to Mexico to await their immigration proceedings. While in Tijuana, the family survived a shoot-out that occurred outside their temporary shelter. Because of the violence and the trauma, the Petitioners experienced while traveling through Mexico, they expressed a fear of returning to Mexico during an immigration court proceeding. The Petitioners were given a non-refoulement interview by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Asylum Officer. They did not pass the non-refoulement interview. The Petitioners expressed a fear of returning to Mexico again at a later immigration court hearing. Pursuant to the Respondents' policy, the Petitioners were denied access to their retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interview. The Petitioners filed suit against the Respondents, alleging their policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They also filed motions for TRO and class certification. The Court granted the Petitioners' motion for TRO, enjoining the Respondents from prohibiting the Petitioners access to the retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interview. With the counsel present, the Petitioners ultimately passed their second non-refoulement interview. They are still awaiting the outcome of their asylum case but are no longer within the MPP. The Petitioners, on behalf of themselves and putative class members, request certification of the following class: All individuals who are detained in CBP custody in California awaiting or undergoing non-refoulement interviews pursuant to what the government calls the Migrant Protection Protocols program and who have retained lawyers. The Petitioners argue the proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Defendants argue these requirements are not met, Petitioners lack standing, and the class certification motion is moot. The only claim currently at issue and subject to class certification is the Petitioners' APA claim. Their pending motion for classwide preliminary injunction is addressed in a separate order. Before turning to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Sabraw addresses the Respondents' arguments that the Petitioners lack standing, and that the Petitioners' claim is moot. The Judge finds that the Petitioners' injury -- deprivation of the right to retained counsel -- was concrete, actual, and continuing at the time they filed their Complaint and moved for TRO. It was neither speculative nor hypothetical. The Petitioners, therefore, do not need to show a real or immediate threat that they will again be subjected to the MPP and deprived of access to retained counsel. Holding otherwise would drastically change the doctrine of standing. Contrary to the Respondents' arguments, the Petitioners' claim is inherently transitory. Upon expressing a fear of returning to Mexico, the Petitioners were placed in short-term detention. They sought an emergency TRO because they feared their non-refoulement interview was "imminent." The Petitioners' fear was correct—their non-refoulement interview was scheduled two days after the Court ruled on the TRO. It is clear the Court would not have had enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the Petitioners' individual interests expired. Judge Sabraw also finds that (i) Rule 23(a) and its prerequisites for class certification -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and (ii) Rule 23(b) requirements are met. For these reasons, the District Court granted the Petitioners' motion for class certification as to the Petitioners' APA statutory claim. Specifically, the Court certified the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): All individuals who are detained in CBP custody in California awaiting or undergoing non-refoulement interviews pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols program and who have retained lawyers. The Petitioners are appointed as Class Representatives, and the Counsel from the ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties are appointed as Class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/JDTHFl from Leagle.com. Cristian Doe & Diana Doe, Petitioners, represented by Monika Yvette Langarica -- info@aclusandiego.org -- ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Bardis Vakili -- bvakili@aclusandiego.org -- ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, John David Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties & Jonathan Paul Markovitz. Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mark A. Morgan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Douglas Harrison, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, Ryan Scudder, Acting Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, Robert Hood, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer in Charge, San Ysidro Port of Entry, Sergio Beltran, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer in Charge, Calexico Port of Entry & William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents, represented by Archith Ramkumar, Department of Justice Office of Immigration & Rebecca Grace Church, United States Attorney's Office. UNITED STATES: Classwide Prelim. Injunction in Doe Suit Reaffirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CRISTIAN DOE, DIANA DOE, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; et al., Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2119-DMS (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California reaffirmed the Petitioners' request for classwide injunctive relief to allow for access to retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interviews. Petitioners Cristian and Diana Doe and their five children fled their home country of Guatemala in April 2019. While traveling through Mexico, the Petitioners and their children were threatened at gun point, assaulted, robbed, and stripped of their clothing. Upon reaching the United States, the Petitioners immediately requested asylum. Pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols Program ("MPP" or "Remain in Mexico"), a program instituted in January of 2019, the Respondents returned Petitioners to Mexico to await their immigration proceedings. While in Tijuana, the family survived a shoot-out that occurred outside their temporary shelter. Because of the violence and the trauma, the Petitioners experienced while traveling through Mexico, they expressed a fear of returning to Mexico during an immigration court proceeding. The Petitioners were given a non-refoulement interview by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Asylum Officer. They did not pass the non-refoulement interview. The Petitioners expressed a fear of returning to Mexico again at a later immigration court hearing. Pursuant to the Respondents' policy, the Petitioners were denied access to their retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interview. The Petitioners filed suit against the Respondents, alleging their policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On Nov. 5, 2019, the Petitioners filed a motion for class certification and a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") to allow Petitioners access to their retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interviews under the MPP. Pursuant to the MPP, asylum seekers arriving at the United States Border by land from Mexico are returned to Mexico to await the outcome of their immigration proceedings. Bound by the duty of non-refoulement, however, the Respondents may not return an asylum seeker to Mexico if the individual can show he or she faces persecution or torture in Mexico. Instead, the asylum seeker is taken out of the MPP and paroled or detained in the United States to await their removal proceedings. On Nov. 12, 2019, the Court granted the Petitioners' motion for TRO and ordered the Respondents to allow the Petitioners access to their retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interviews. Petitioner Cristian Doe was interviewed two days later by an U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Asylum Officer. Three attorneys for Doe were present telephonically. The Asylum Officer found it is more likely than not that the Petitioners will be persecuted or tortured if they are returned to Mexico. Consequently, the Doe family was taken out of the MPP and released from Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") custody. They are still awaiting the remainder of their immigration case. The Court has certified a class action to include similarly situated asylum seekers. The Petitioners now request classwide injunctive relief to allow for access to retained counsel prior to and during their non-refoulement interviews. Judge Sabraw finds that prior to non-refoulement interviews, asylum seekers are detained in CBP custody. Although asylum seekers must articulate a fear of return to Mexico before non-refoulement interviews commence, they are not electing to appear at their non-refoulement interviews. A non-refoulement interview is merely the next step in a long, multi-stage immigration process, and it is irrelevant to the applicability of Section 555(b) whether or not the Petitioners triggered that process. To hold otherwise would suggest Section 555(b) does not apply in workers' compensation hearings -- hearings that are initiated by the same individuals claiming a right to counsel under Section 555(b). The Ninth Circuit has, however, held otherwise. Given the circumstances in which the non-refoulement interview takes place, the Petitioners are "compelled" to appear for the purposes of Section 555(b). The Court's conclusion that asylum seekers have a right to access retained counsel prior to and during non-refoulement interviews is required by the text of Section 555(b) and Section 559 of the APA. The Petitioners have established a likelihood of success on their statutory claim under the APA. Turning to the next factor, the Plaintiffs must show they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. The Court finds that the fact that some class members may still be returned to Mexico, despite having an attorney present during their non-refoulement interview, does not preclude a finding of irreparable injury. The Petitioners need not further show that the action sought to be enjoined is the exclusive cause of the injury. It is enough to find that injunctive relief will prevent additional suffering, persecution, and torture. In addition, deprivation of the right to retained counsel for an interview of this magnitude is an injury itself. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Petitioners have shown a likelihood of irreparable injury. Next, the Court finds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of granting the preliminary injunction, despite the Respondents' allegations. Although the Respondents will be required to comply with additional procedural requirements prior to and during non-refoulement interviews, those procedural requirements are required by federal law, specifically the APA. The Respondents cannot reasonably assert that they are harmed in any legally cognizable sense by being compelled to the follow the law. Furthermore, if injunctive relief is not granted, the class members face the possibility of being forced to return to Mexico to suffer persecution, torture, and potentially death. The balance of equities, therefore, favors preventing the violation of requirements of federal law. The Court also finds that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate how complying with the legal requirement will impede the efficient administration of immigration laws at the border. Furthermore, the Respondents' argument that it lacks the staff and space required to comply with the APA is not persuasive, for the Respondents elected to implement the MPP and detain asylum seekers in CBP custody pending non-refoulement interviews. As the Petitioners note, the Respondents cannot bootstrap their choices into justifications for those choices. Therefore, the public's interest weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief. Finally, the Court finds that although the Petitioners have conceded telephonic access to the counsel during the non-refoulement interviews is sufficient, the Petitioners have maintained the need for in-person access prior to non-refoulement interviews. Therefore, given the text of Section 555(b), the class members are entitled to in-person access to retained counsel prior to their non-refoulement interviews. For these reasons, Jdge Sabraw granted the Petitioners' motion for classwide preliminary injunction. The Respondents may not conduct the class members' non-refoulement interviews without first affording the interviewees access to their retained counsel both before and during any such interview. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/luKc45 from Leagle.com. Cristian Doe & Diana Doe, Petitioners, represented by Monika Yvette Langarica -- info@aclusandiego.org -- ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Bardis Vakili -- bvakili@aclusandiego.org -- ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, John David Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties & Jonathan Paul Markovitz. Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mark A. Morgan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Douglas Harrison, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, Ryan Scudder, Acting Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, Robert Hood, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer in Charge, San Ysidro Port of Entry, Sergio Beltran, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer in Charge, Calexico Port of Entry & William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents, represented by Archith Ramkumar, Department of Justice Office of Immigration & Rebecca Grace Church, United States Attorney's Office. VERRA MOBILITY: Herrera Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verra Mobility Corporation. The case is styled as Teri Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verra Mobility Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00515-ESW (D. Ariz., March 11, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Verra Mobility Corporation designs and develops mobility software. The Company offers speed, bus lane, railroad crossing, and school bus top arm enforcement and enforcement ticketing, as well as crash reports and video-enabled crime data analysis solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Graham B LippSmith, Esq. Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq. Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner LLP - Los Angeles, CA 360 E 2nd St., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: (213) 254-4800 Fax: (213) 254-4801 Email: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com janderson@klwtlaw.com - and - Jason T Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N Powell, Esq. Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC 1700 7th Ave., Ste. 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 - and - Scott Andrew Booth, Esq. Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner LLP 3200 N Central Ave., Ste. 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 224-7800 Fax: (602) 224-7801 Email: sbooth@kasdancdlaw.com VESELKA ENTERPRISES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. VESELKA ENTERPRISES LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-02062 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendants' Web site, https://www.veselka.com/, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. The Defendant operates its restaurant, as well as the Web site, and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com VI-JON INC: David Files Suit in Southern District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vi-Jon, Inc. The case is styled as Geraldine David, Susan Lara, Theresa Haas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vi-Jon, Inc. doing business as: Germ-X, Case No. 3:20-cv-00424-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., March 5, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Vi-Jon is a health and beauty care company that produces both private label and brand name products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: 619-1022 Email: ak@kazlg.com WARNER MUSIC: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class in Williams Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Leonard Williams v. Warner Music Group Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order on Feb. 27, 2020, denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all persons and entities in the United States, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to agreements with Warner Bros. Records, Inc. or its subsidiaries and affiliates whose contract has a California choice of law provision and either: 1. Expressly provides for royalties for digital streaming and an applicable royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner Records' net receipts: 2. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming and contains a general licensing provision at a royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner Records' net receipts; or 3. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming or a general licensing provision." The Court said, "Because Plaintiffs face at least two unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of this litigation, the Court concludes that the typicality requirement is not satisfied. Plaintiffs are 'susceptible to individual defenses that threaten to detract seriously from the presentation of the class's case and become a central focus of the litigation.' Kandel v. Brother Int'l Corp., 264 F.R.D. 630, 632 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Because typicality is not satisfied, the Court need not consider the remaining requirements of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b). The Court declines Plaintiffs' request to defer ruling on the present Motion until after additional discovery has been completed." The Plaintiff alleges that Warner Bros. Records' and its subsidiaries have not paid the full amount of royalties due to artists in connection with the digital streaming of sound recordings in foreign countries. WMG, Warner Bros. Records' parent corporation, administers artist royalty payments according to artists’ compensation agreements. WMG, WBR, and their foreign subsidiaries are each others alter egos.[CC] WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Court Clarifies Class Definition in Terry Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DENIKA TERRY and ROY HUSKEY III, and each of them for themselves individually, and for all other persons similarly situation and on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs/Relators, v. WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC, WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., WASATCH POOL HOLDINGS, LLC, CHESAPEAKE COMMONS HOLDINGS, LLC, LOGAN PARK APARTMENTS, LLC; LOGAN PARK APARTMENTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00799-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion seeking (1) clarification, or in the alternative, amendment of the class definition, (2) compilation of the class list, (3) approval of the proposed class notice, and (4) amendments to the scheduling order. The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action on April 14, 2015. Since then, the complaint has undergone four rounds of amendment. From inception, the Plaintiffs have consistently described the relevant class period "as the time period starting four or six years prior to the date of filing of the Complaint." On July 30, 2018, citing to the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, the Court certified the Rule 23(b)(3) "reimbursement class" as follows: "All persons who, in the time period starting four years prior to the date of filing this Complaint through the final resolution of this matter, (1) have been tenants at any of Defendants' California properties; (2) have participated in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in connection with their tenancies at the California properties; and (3) have paid additional charges set forth in Additional Services Agreements in excess of their individual portions of the contract set forth in the HAP Contracts." What is meant by "the time period starting four years prior to the date of filing this Complaint" is the subject of dispute in the case. The Plaintiffs contend the four-year class period begins April 14, 2011, exactly four years prior to the filing of the initiating complaint. The Defendants believe the four-year class period runs from the date of the operative Fourth Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to clarify that when certifying the class period as "starting four years prior to the date of filing this Complaint," the Court meant from the initial complaint, and thus the class period begins April 14, 2011. Alternatively, if the Court's certification order ambiguously defines the class period, they the Court to adopt their interpretation because it relates the class claims back to the filing of the original complaint. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue that if the Court determines the current class period is limited to the four years preceding the Third Amended Complaint, the Court should exercise its discretion to amend the class definition exercising its authority under Rule 23. The Defendants counter that the plain language of the court's certification order and the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints clearly define the class period as limited by the four years prior to "that Complaint," meaning the operative complaint, not the original complaint. They argue that "complaint" is not synonymous with "action" or "matter"; thus, when the Plaintiffs' own definition refers to "this Complaint," its only natural interpretation is that of the operative complaint in which the words are contained. Judge Mueller holds that sufficient justification exists to define the class period as beginning April 14, 2011, exercising its discretionary authority under Rule 23. The Court thus need not resolve whether the relation-back doctrine applies. Judge Mueller finds that because ambiguity regarding the class period will pose difficulties when assembling and providing notice to potential class members, Court intervention is necessary. Moreover, the Defendants make no contention the requirements of Rule 23 will be disrupted or they will be prejudiced by a more precise definition of the class period. Additionally, although "ascertainability" is not a per se requirement under Rule 23, it is, nonetheless, essential that the identity of class members must be ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. Given the justification for amendment of the class period, Judge Mueller must also ensure the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the class period is permissible. Moreover, to the extent defendants contend they were not on notice of the Plaintiffs' purported interpretation of the class period, the Plaintiffs adequately address the concern by noting the evidence in support of their class certification motion dated back to 2011. Finally, there is merit to the Plaintiffs' argument that crediting the Defendants' position would beget an illogical result. If the class period were to begin running four years prior to the date of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as defendants suggest, that would effectively modify the class period certified by the court in its July 30, 2018 order, which relied on the class definition supplied by the Third Amended Complaint. Such perfunctory adjustments to the class period run counter to Rule 23's exacting standards and the concerns raised by the Defendants. In light of the analysis, a permissible, and the most fair and reasonable, interpretation of the phrase "this Complaint" is one that refers to the original complaint; consequently, the class period must be anchored to the "time period starting four years prior to the filing of" the April 14, 2015 complaint, meaning the class period began April 14, 2011. To the extent Rule 16(b) applies, for the same reasons articulated, Judge Mueller finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard such that amendment of the class period is justified. The Plaintiffs' motion requests three additional forms of relief: (1) order demanding the Defendants produce a class list, (2) amendment to the scheduling order, and (3) approval of class notice. These requests are unopposed. As to the Plaintiffs' request to amend the scheduling order, it appears the Court's July 11, 2019 stipulation and order has resolved the request. However, if the parties desire additional amendments to the scheduling order, the Court will consider such requests through the filing of a stipulation and proposed order. As to the remaining requests for a class list production and approval of class notice, the motion is granted, the Court rules. Without delay, the Defendants will compile and produce the class list for the Reimbursement Class dating back to April 14, 2011, and the class list will include the class members' names and any available standard identifying information and be produced in manipulable electronic form, such as Excel. KCC Class Action Services is hereby appointed as the class action administrator and plaintiffs' proposed class notice form and procedures, including the mailing of class notice by U.S. mail and the proposed 35-day opt-out period, are hereby approved, the Plaintiffs may proceed forthwith with providing notice to the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/AIg5SZ from Leagle.com. Denika Terry & Roy Huskey, III, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Wolff -- andrew@awolfflaw.com -- Law Office of Andrew Wolff, PC & Jesse Mica Newmark. United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Vincente Antonio Tennerelli, United States Attorney's Office. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Wasatch Property Management, Inc., a California Corporation, Wasatch Pool Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Chesapeake Commons Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Logan Park Apartments, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company & Logan Park Apartments, LP, a California Limited Partnership, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Salazar, Jr. -- Joe.Salazar@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Ryan James Matthews -- ryan.matthews@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Consolidation of FAFE Case W/ D'Amico Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- WASTE MANAGEMENT: Court Refuses FAFE Cases Consolidation The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases in the case captioned JAMES W. D'AMICO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-6080-EAW-MJP. (W.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff James W. D'Amico filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging negligence, gross negligence and nuisance against Defendant Waste Management of New York, LLC. Defendant operates the High Acres Landfill and Recycling Center in Fairport, New York, which Plaintiffs claim emits noxious odors into Plaintiffs' property. Also pending in the Western District of New York is a case titled Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Management of New York, L.L.C. (FAFE), case number 18-CV-6588, against Waste Management of New York, LLC, in which Plaintiffs claim there are persistent, noxious, and offensive odors of garbage (Garbage Odors) and landfill gas (Landfill Gas Odors) emanating from two landfills owned by Defendant, one of which is at issue in the present case. Defendant argues that consolidating the two cases for discovery purposes will increase efficiency by coordinating discovery in both cases that will likely include the same type of discovery from the same witnesses,thus avoiding duplicative discovery. Plaintiff opposes consolidation largely on the grounds that he believes it would provide Defendant with the ability to delay the case based upon the discovery needs in the FAFE case. On review, the Court finds that consolidating the two cases risks prejudicing Plaintiffs in the FAFE case due to the likelihood of significant delay involving the class certification issue in the action. The Court further finds that consolidation is not warranted given the variance in legal facts and issues in the two actions. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to consolidate the present case with the FAFE case for the purposes of discovery without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s2ebxm9 from Leagle.com James W D'Amico, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Alexander Coulson , Liddle & Dubin, P.C., Steven David Liddle , Liddle & Dubin, P.C. 975 East Jefferson Ave., Detroit, MI 48207& Jan M. Smolak , Michaels & Smolak, P.C. 17 E Genesee St #401, Auburn, NY 13021 Waste Management of New York, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eugene Edward Mathews, III - mmathews@mcguirewoods.com - McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph D. Picciotti - jpicciotti@harrisbeach.com - Harris Beach LLP, Kelly S. Foss , Harris Beach LLP, 333, West Washington Street, Suite 200, Syracuse, NY 13202, Philip A. Goldstein - pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP & R. Trent Taylor - rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com - McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice. WELLS FARGO: Lanning Seeks Unpaid Wages for Mortgage Consultants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lanning, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02055 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020), is brought under the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, agreed upon wages, commissions, unlawful deductions, spread-of-hours-pay and other damages for the Plaintiff and other mortgage consultants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was instructed by the Defendant's management to only record a certain amount of hours, instead of the hours actually worked for Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff regularly did not record all hours worked. Additionally, regarding recorded hours, the Defendant deducted (recaptured) hourly pay previously paid to and earned by the Plaintiff in subsequent weeks, thereby, evading the requirements of the NYLL. The Defendant has also failed, as a matter of policy, to take into account all compensation (before recapture of wages earned and unlawful deductions) in calculating the proper rate to be paid to him in overtime weeks, the Plaintiff asserts. He adds that the Defendant instituted a policy and practice of applying unlawful deductions to his earned commissions, including deductions for mailings, Web site placement, advertising leads, and uncollected fees, among other things, in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Private Mortgage Banker (Mortgage Consultant) from 2016 until 2018. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national bank providing online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment, retirement, wealth management, and insurance services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 227-0763 Fax: (412) 774-1994 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and – John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Phone: (412) 278-1280 Fax: (412) 278-1282 Email: linklaw@comcast.net WENDY'S INT'L: Court Dismisses Davis ADA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned NICOLE DAVIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-04003. (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Nicole Davis, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, alleges that Defendant Wendy's International, LLC violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by offering late-night hours at its restaurants during which customers may patronize Wendy's only via drive-through windows. Davis argues that she cannot independently access Wendy's products during these hours because she is visually-impaired and unable to operate motor vehicles, and thus unable to use the drive-through. Wendy's moved to dismiss Davis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6). Wendy's argues that the Illinois District Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident class members who allegedly experienced ADA violations outside of Illinois. Wendy's asks the Illinois District Court to strike Davis's Rule 23 class allegations or limit them to persons injured within Illinois. Here, Davis's nationwide class definition includes all individuals who are unable to drive by reason of visual disability and who have been and/or are being denied access to Wendy's restaurants in the United States where Wendy's restaurants products and services are only offered via drive-through. Due process forecloses the Illinois District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident consumers alleging injuries that occurred outside of Illinois. Therefore, the Illinois District Court strikes the class definition to the extent that it asserts claims of non-residents whose alleged injuries occurred outside of Illinois. As to standing, Wendy's argues that Davis lacks standing for her injunctive and declaratory relief claims. Wendy's argues that the first element, injury in fact, is at issue here. To establish injury in fact for Title III ADA claims, a plaintiff must allege past injury under the ADA, show that it is reasonable to infer from her complaint that this discriminatory treatment will continue and show that 'it is also reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of her visits and the proximity of the public accommodation to her home, that she intends to return to the public accommodation in the future. Davis has alleged past injury under the ADA. A plaintiff can allege past injury where they provide sufficient facts to indicate that they attempted to access the restaurant during late-night hours. Davis claims that she attempted to access the restaurant but could not because the doors were locked. Therefore, she has alleged past injury, the Court notes. Davis does not lack standing for her injunctive and declaratory relief claims because she has shown past and future injury such that she has established injury in fact. Therefore the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moroever, Wendy's argues that Davis fails to allege the requisite factual elements of a claim under Title III of the ADA because she does not allege discrimination on the basis of disability and she does not allege that Wendy's owned, leased, or operated the restaurant location at issue. The Court opines that Davis has not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the Section 12182(a) element that discrimination is "on the basis of disability." Because Davis has failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the Section 12182(a) causation element that discrimination is "on the basis of disability," she has failed to state a claim for violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the Court grants Wendy's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tvpdnwt from Leagle.com Nicole Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto Luis Costales - rlc@beaumontcostales.com - Beaumont Costales & William Henry Beaumont - whb@beaumontcostales.com - Beaumont Costales LLC. Wendy's International Inc., Defendant, represented by James N. Boudreau- boudreauj@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig LLP, Laura Luisi - luisil@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Mark D. Kemple , Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 33 S.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131, pro hac vice. WILL COUNTY, IL: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Dunn Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Andrea Dunn v. County Of Will, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06304 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 28, 2020, Dunn's motion to certify class is granted in accordance with the terms defined in the parties' settlement agreement, for which the Court gave preliminary approval on Jan. 23, 2020. Will County is a county in the northeastern part of the state of Illinois.[CC] WYOMING VALLEY: Court Approves $800K Deal in Potoski FLSA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LYNN MARIE POTOSKI and DENISE GAITERI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WYOMING VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM and WILKES-BARRE GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:11-CV-00582 (M.D. Pa.), Judge A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Joint Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law for Approval of the Parties' FLSA Settlement Including Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards. Plaintiffs Carmen Attanasio, Potoski, and Gaiteri commenced the collective action on March 28, 2011, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Complaint alleges that Wyoming Valley Health Care System and Wilkes-Barre General Hospital violated FLSA by failing to pay class member employees for work performed during meal breaks and for proper uniform maintenance. Following initial dismissal of the action, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2011. Over the course of the next eight years, the parties litigated and the District Court resolved many issues surrounding the case including class notice and certification requirements as well who could properly be considered class members. The Defendants moved for Summary Judgment on both claims on Nov. 9, 2018. The Motion was granted as to the uniform maintenance class, but denied as to the meal break class. The parties then indicated their intent to settle the case as to the remaining plaintiffs and claims on March 28, 2019. Request for an in camera review of a settlement agreement was denied on Sept. 4, 2019, and on Oct. 9, 2019, the instant Joint Motion was filed. The Settlement Agreement accompanying the Joint Motion provides for a total maximum payment of $800,000, inclusive of all fees and costs, in exchange for the release of claims as defined in the Agreement. Participating members of the class are to receive a pro-rated portion of the settlement after payment of attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The fees and costs for the counsel are $280,000 and $32,874 respectively, with $469,126 to be distributed to the Plaintiffs, for an average of $3,303.70 per class member. The remaining $18,000 is for service awards to the named Plaintiffs in the amount of $6,000 per named Plaintiff as well as $6,000 for costs to administer the settlement. The Agreement further sets forth, inter alia, the duties of the settlement administrator, RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC, the approval of the settlement, the notice to eligible settlement class members, the terms of the payment, the release of claims against the Defendants, and the confidentiality of the agreement. On review, Judge Caputo finds that approval of the settlement is warranted and the proposed attorneys' fees are reasonable. Because the Agreement represents a fair and reasonable settlement resolving a bona fide dispute without frustrating the purpose of FLSA, the Joint Motion for settlement, fees, costs, and service awards are granted, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/9Wk3IE from Leagle.com. Carmen Attanasio, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko , STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, Clifford A. Rieders -- Crieders@riederstravis.com -- Rieders Travis Humphrey Waters & Dohrmann, David J. Cohen -- dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, James B. Zouras, STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP & Ryan F. Stephan, STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP. Lynn Marie Potoski, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated & Denise Gaiteri, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko, STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, David J. Cohen, Stephan Zouras, LLP, James B. Zouras, STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, Ryan F. Stephan, STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP & Wayne A. Ely . Wyoming Valley Health Care System & Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co., LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrea M. Kirshenbaum -- akirshenbaum@postschell.com -- Post & Schell, P.C., David E. Renner -- drenner@postschell.com -- Post & Schell, P.C. & Sidney R. Steinberg -- ssteinberg@postschell.com -- Post & Schell. ZAK DESIGNS: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zak Designs, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zak Designs, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02191 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020). The Company offers wholesale distribution of home furnishings and house wares products, Zak Designs serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ********* 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 ***