/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200317.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 55 Headlines AIRCASTLE LTD: Submits More Info to Appease Merger Suits AMAZON LOGISTICS: Faces O'Neal Suit in California Superior Court AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification in Wage Suit Reversed AMERICAN COVER: Setareh Sues Over Meal & Rest Periods Premium Pay AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: Perez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts APPLE INC: Must Compensate Workers for Time Spent on Searches ARIZONA: Court Denies 2nd Certification Bid in Eggers Inmates Suit AT&T INC: Roberts Class Action over MBR Program Still Ongoing BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Faces De Vega Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages BED BATH & BEYOND: Turnier Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. California BEN'S ASPHALT: Engages in Wage & Hour Violations, Ramirez Alleges BHH LCC: Court Denies Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Hart Suit BLUE CROSS: Court Denies Motion to Show Cause in Love Class Action BLUE MONKEY VAPES: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Prelim Approval of $600K Ferrell Deal Endorsed CALIFORNIA: Assembly Bill 5 Is Unconstitutional, Crossley Claims CAPITAL ONE: Court-Okayed Interchange Fees Pact Brought to 2nd Cir. CAPITAL ONE: Defends Securities Suit over Cybersecurity Incident CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits on Cybersecurity Incident CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Supplemental Briefing Ordered in Jones Suit CIT GROUP: March 19 Preliminary Hearing Set for Class Settlement CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Franchi Says Merger Deal Breaches Securities Laws CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Nessim Class Suit over Merger Deal Underway CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: SEC Info on Merger Deal Misleading, Pate Says COMMUNITY HEALTH: March 20 Deadline to Respond to Padilla Complaint COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Says Class Suits over 2014 Cyber-Attack Resolved COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Bowden Class Action in Louisiana COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Class Suit over Hospital Liens COMMUNITY HEALTH: Zwick Partners Class Suit in Tennessee Underway CORECIVIC INC: Grae Class Suit in Fact Discovery DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Ornelas Suit in California Superior Ct. DUBELL LUMBER: Class Certification Bid Denied Without Prejudice DYNAMITE DOG: Chambers Suit Seeks OT & Regular Wages Under FLSA EASY DEAL: Justin Sues Over Mechanical Issues of Bought Vehicle ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Merger-Related Class Action Underway EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed EQUIFAX INC: Court Denies Bid for Rehearing on Class Counsel Fees EQUIFAX INC: Has Initial Pact to Resolve 4 Cybersecurity Suits EQUIFAX INC: Nationwide Class Okayed in Ontario Cybersecurity Suit EQUIFAX INC: No Timetable Yet for Data Breach Settlement Payout EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Pact Reached in Securities Litigation EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Reached with Financial Institutions EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Underway in Pennsylvania Class Action EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Booster Seats Are Unsafe, Brown Says EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Car Seats Are Unsafe, Wilder Claims EXPERIAN INFO: 9th Cir. Orders Fees Recalculation in Radcliffe Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Narrows Claims in Mader FCRA Suit FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit Goes to Trial FIRST SOLAR: Arizona Suit Plaintiffs Seek Court OK of Settlement FLOOR & DECOR: Still Defends Securities Litigation in Georgia GEORGETOWN MAC HAIK: Hoover Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Court Narrows Claims in Derrick's Abuse Action GOLD STANDARD: McNulty Sues Over Collection of Biometric Info GOLDSMITH & HULL: Must Clarify Scope of Tavares Suit Settlement GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defamatory Online Reviews GRAND CANYON: Ariz. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Foreman HARBOR DISTRIBUTING: Denied Workers OT Pay, Correa Suit Says HCC MARKETING: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania HENRY SCHEIN: Court Dismisses Hatchett Suit with Prejudice HENRY SCHEIN: Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Underway in 7th Cir. HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement of NY Securities Class Suit Underway HENRY SCHEIN: Still Faces Hollywood Police Officers Class Suit HILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Mack Labor Suit Over Meal Period Fraud HORNELL BREWING: Silva Disputes "All Natural" Labeling HOTEL.COM LP: Loses Appeal on Summary Judgment in Pine Bluff Action HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Class in Flagg-El Suit Denied HYATT HOTELS: Still Faces Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters INKSTER, MI: $130K Settlement in Garner Suit Gets Prelim. Approval JELD-WEN HOLDING: Retirement Sys. Sues over 19% Share Price Drop K&N ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses Penrod Claims Without Prejudice KAISER FOUNDATION: Can Compel Arbitration in Hunter FCRA Suit LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MACY'S INC: Faces Lee TCPA Suit Over Automated Text Message Ads MDL 2672: Bid to Dismiss Iconic Motors Clean Diesel Suit Denied MDL 2672: Kuhn Complaint in VW "Clean Diesel" Suit Dismissed NORTH HEMPSTEAD, NY: Gramercy Class Suit Moved to E.D. New York OASIS LEGAL: District Court Vacates Stay in Davis Usury Case PHARM-SAVE INC: Court Dismisses First Amended Savidge Suit PRIMA NOCE PACKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Muller Hits Illegal SMS Ads RAYTHEON CO: Mass. District Denies Bid to Dismiss Cruz ERISA Suit REAGAN POWER: Underpays Welders, Willis Suit Alleges REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal from Nixed Securities Class Suit Underway SALDUTTI LLC: Consumer Bank's Bid to Dismiss Rankin Suit Granted SECURE LENDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hand Suit Claims SECURITY SERVICE: Duffy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SEED CONSULTING: James Sues Over False Credit Advice SET & SERVICE: Furman Suit Moved From Calif. Super. to E.D. Cal. SHOP Q INC: Faces Cooks ADA Suit in C.D. California SOUTHERN CO: Appeal in Franchise Fees Suit v. Georgia Unit Pending SOUTHERN CO: Bid to Nix Turnage Suit vs. Mississippi Unit Pending SOUTHERN CO: Monroe County ERS Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation STANFORD INT'L: 5th Cir. Upholds Bar Orders From Texas District Ct. STS MEDIA: 500MB Rollover Data Cellular Plan Deceptive, Ling Says SUPERIOR SURFACING: Installers Seek to Recover Overtime Pay TREK TRAVEL: $425K Settlement in King Suit Gets Final Approval UNITED MOTORS LTD: Foster Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads WALGREENS BOOTS: Shanov Sues Over NDMA and NDEA Tainted Valsartan WAVVE MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims WOOD-MODE INC: Court Certifies Class in Swede WARN Class Action WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls [*] Measure to Ban Forced Arbitration Now in the Senate ********* AIRCASTLE LTD: Submits More Info to Appease Merger Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Aircastle Limited has voluntarily supplemented its Definitive Proxy Statement by providing the additional information in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2020, in order to reduce the risk of merger-related lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting its merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation. On November 5, 2019, Aircastle Limited, a Bermuda exempted company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with MM Air Limited, a Bermuda exempted company ("Parent"), and MM Air Merger Sub Limited, a Bermuda exempted company and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Marubeni Corporation and Mizuho Leasing Company, Limited. In connection with the Merger, Aircastle filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement, dated January 23, 2020 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), and commenced mailing the Definitive Proxy Statement to shareholders of Aircastle on or about January 29, 2020. Aircastle said in its February 24, 2020 Form 8-K filing that it is aware of seven lawsuits that have been filed by purported Aircastle shareholders against Aircastle and its directors and certain of its officers, challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement ("Merger Litigation"). On December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned David Younge v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11574. Also on December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02295. On January 3, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Ruda Anderson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00017. On January 21, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Sherie Johnson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00334. On January 28, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Howard Shoemaker v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00746. On February 14, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Marc Podems v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01319. These six complaints allege that, among other things, the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 14d-9 by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information in the proxy statement. These complaints seek, among other things, (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction, (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed transaction is consummated and (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 2, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, captioned Daniel Hotop v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. FST-CV20-6045115 (the "Hotop Complaint"). The Hotop Complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by (i) entering into the proposed transaction through a flawed process, (ii) accepting an unfair price and (iii) filing a materially deficient proxy statement. The Hotop Complaint seeks, among other things, (a) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction, (b) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, (c) declaratory relief that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, (d) a judgment directing Aircastle to commence a new sale process, (e) damages and (f) plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws. However, in order to reduce the risk of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement by providing additional information presented in the Current Report on Form 8-K. The Company said, "Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required." Aircastle Limited provides aircraft finance and leasing services. The Company is acquires, leases, and sells high-utility commercial jet aircraft to airlines. Aircastle serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Stamford Connecticut. AMAZON LOGISTICS: Faces O'Neal Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Logistics, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Nicole O'Neal, On behalf of all person similarly situated v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the state of California; Does 1-10; and Synctruck, LLC, Case No. 34-2020-00275424-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 14, 2020). Amazon Logistics is a Seattle area motor carrier that provides transportation of containerized shipments to and from shippers, ports, railroads and container yards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Craig Clark, Esq. CLARK LAW GROUP 3258 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 E-mail: information@clarklawyers.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification in Wage Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert J. Herrington, Esq. -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq. -- saxls@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the Third Circuit reverses class certification because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden on commonality and predominance. Ferreras was a wage and hour case in which plaintiffs claimed American Airlines violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay its employees for all time worked, due to the manner in which the timekeeping system was programmed. The Third Circuit reversed class certification, finding "three problems: first, the district court effectively certified the class conditionally; second, it applied a pleading and initial evidence standard; and third, it failed to resolve conflicts in the evidence. As to the first error, the panel directed that "reliance on, and application of, principles of conditional certification [under FLSA] in the Rule 23 context cannot be permitted." On the second error, the panel observed that the district court essentially required plaintiffs only to make a "threshold showing" that the Rule 23 elements were met, reiterating that the Third Circuit "requires a showing that each of the Rule 23 requirements has been met by a preponderance of the evidence at the time of class certification." Finally, the panel faulted the district court's finding that factual differences among the class could be "addressed during discovery," concluding that "[t]he rigorous analysis demanded by Rule 23 requires a court to resolve such disputes relevant to class certification, before being satisfied that each of the Rule's requirements has been met." Rather than remanding the case, the panel reversed the grant of certification because discovery was complete, and "based on our review of the record, it is clear that commonality and predominance cannot be met." Ferreras is a reminder that a rigorous analysis must be conducted at the class certification stage, and that plaintiffs must satisfy the Rule 23 elements by a preponderance of the evidence. The case is styled Ferreras v. American Airlines, Inc., 946 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2019) [GN] AMERICAN COVER: Setareh Sues Over Meal & Rest Periods Premium Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- NEJAT SETAREH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. AMERICAN COVER DESIGN 26, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06310 (Cal. Super., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal periods and rest periods and to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; and failing to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees regularly worked shifts of eight hours or more per day, without being afforded a meal break during the first five hours, and/or a second meal break after ten hours, as required by California law. The Defendants had a policy of automatically deducting thirty minutes from the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employee's paychecks, regardless of whether they took a lunch break or not. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from 2001 through December 2018. American Cover is an accounting company based in Vernon, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw. com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: Perez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ----------------------------------------------------------- Iliana Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Family Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00996 (N.D. Ill., February 10, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interests on any amounts awarded, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, expenses and costs of suit resulting from breach of contract for failing to pay the full sales tax, title transfer fees and registration fees due under their policy. Perez suffered a total loss of her vehicle. American Family failed to pay her the full amount to which she was entitled under her automobile insurance policy, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-610-5223 APPLE INC: Must Compensate Workers for Time Spent on Searches ------------------------------------------------------------- Texarkana Gazette reports that California law requires Apple Inc. to pay its workers for being searched before they leave retail stores, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously on Feb. 13. A group of Apple workers filed a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant, charging they were required to submit to searches before leaving the stores but were not compensated for the time those searches required. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the case is now pending, asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law requires compensation. In a decision written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the court said an industrial wage order defines hours worked as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Apple, which has 52 retail stores in California, requires its workers to submit to exit searches of their bags, packages, purses, backpacks, brief cases and personal Apple devices, such as iPhones, to deter theft. Failure to comply with the search policy can lead to termination. Employees are supposed to find a manager or security officer to do the searches after they clock out. Employees estimate that waiting for and undergoing the searches can take five to 20 minutes, or, on busiest days, up to 45 minutes. Apple argued that workers could avoid such searches by choosing not to bring a bag, package, or personal Apple technology device to work. A federal district court judge ruled in favor of Apple, deciding that workers had to prove they not only were restrained from leaving but that there was no way to avoid having personal items searched. Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit. The California Supreme Court said a ban on any personal items would be "draconian." "Under the circumstances of this case and the realities of ordinary, 21st century life, we find farfetched and untenable Apple's claim that its bag-search policy can be justified as providing a benefit to its employees," the court said. The court noted that workers may need a bag to hold ordinary, everyday items, including wallets, keys, cellphones, eye glasses and water bottles. "Apple's proposed rule conditioning compensability on whether an employee can theoretically avoid bringing a bag, purse, or iPhone to work does not offer a workable standard, and certainly not an employee protective one," Cantil-Sakauye wrote. The court's decision is retroactive. The case will now return to the 9th Circuit, where the federal judges will apply the Feb. 13 interpretation of state law. [GN] ARIZONA: Court Denies 2nd Certification Bid in Eggers Inmates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Counsel and/or Appointment of Interim Counsel in the case captioned Zachary Eggers, Plaintiff, v. Ernesto Trujillo, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-03913-PHX-SRB (ESW), (A. Ariz.). The complaint is a prisoners right case against the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) and its personnel, including Ernesto Trujillo, as Northern Operations Director of the ADOC. On November 20, 2018, the Arizona District Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Request for Appointment of Interim Counsel. In a later Order, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against certain Defendants and allowed the case to proceed for service. That same Order referred all pretrial proceedings to a Magistrate Judge. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Counsel and/or Appointment of Interim Counsel which the Defendants opposed. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on November 8, 2019 recommending denial of the Motion. Plaintiff filed a timely written objection. In considering an objection to a non-dispositive matter, the District Court will modify or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) Plaintiff's objection does not show that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court finds that Plaintiff's present motion is nothing more than a request to reconsider the Court's prior order. The Court also finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for denial of the motion is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The District Court also adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the District Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; Appointment of Counsel, and/or Appointment of Interim Counsel Pursuant to Rule 23. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s46tusp from Leagle.com Zachary Eggers, Plaintiff, pro se. Ernesto Trujillo, Panann Days & Unknown Bowers, Captain, Defendants, represented by Michelle Catherine Lombino , Office of the Attorney General. AT&T INC: Roberts Class Action over MBR Program Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled, Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, related to AT&T's Maximum Bit Rate (MBR) is still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "Several class actions were filed challenging our MBR program. We have secured dismissals in each of these cases except Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, which is ongoing." AT&T Inc. provides communications and digital entertainment services. The company operates through four segments: Business Solutions, Entertainment Group, Consumer Mobility, and International. The company was formerly known as SBC Communications Inc. and changed its name to AT&T Inc. in November 2005. AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 and is based in Dallas, Texas. BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Faces De Vega Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- IMELDA DE VEGA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV-00782 (Cal. Super., Merced Cty., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other class members for all hours worked. The Plaintiff and other class members were required to work more than eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. Baxter is a Fortune 500 American health care company with headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. The Company primarily focuses on products to treat hemophilia, kidney disease, immune disorders and other chronic and acute medical conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Areen Babajanian, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone (818) 230-7502 Facsimile (818) 230-7259 BED BATH & BEYOND: Turnier Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Robert Turnier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., a New York corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00002499-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Feb. 14, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-L-MSB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz. The lawsuit involves fraud related matters. Bed Bath is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 Facsimile: (858) 623-4299 E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is represented by: Matthew Jacob Adler, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 Facsimile: (415) 591-7510 E-mail: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com BEN'S ASPHALT: Engages in Wage & Hour Violations, Ramirez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEN'S ASPHALT, INC., a California corporation; BEN'S ASPHALT & MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; SKEFFINGTON ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01131925-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order by failing to pay prevailing wages, minimum wages and overtime wages. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him and the Class the minimum wage, and to the extent that the hours worked resulted in work in excess of 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, overtime for time spent driving company trucks for work. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee at their California business locations. Ben's Asphalt is an asphalt maintenance and parking lot management company in Southern California. Skeffington provides construction and paving services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 BHH LCC: Court Denies Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Hart Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOANNE HART and SANDRA BUENO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BHH, LLC d/b/a BELL + HOWELL, et ano., Defendants, Case No. 15cv4804 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge William H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of their proposed class-action settlement with BHH. The named Plaintiffs commenced the class-action lawsuit for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of the California Legal Remedies Act against Defendants BHH and Van Hauser, LLC. The consumer class-action lawsuit involves ultrasonic pest repellers manufactured and sold by BHH and purchased by the Plaintiffs. They claim the repellers are ineffective and that BHH committed fraud and breached warranties. BHH counters that its repellers are effective under certain circumstances and that nothing in its marketing is fraudulent. BHH sold approximately 2.48 million repellers during the April 20, 2011 to June 15, 2016 class period. After years of protracted litigation, the parties informed the Court that they reached a settlement. The proposed class-action settlement bifurcates payments to the class members who have proof of payment and those who do not. The class members with proof of purchase will receive a full refund of the purchase price for up to six units if the proof of purchase contains the actual price paid or $15 for up to six units if the proof of purchase omits the actual price paid. The class members without proof of purchase will receive $15 per unit but are capped at two units. For attorneys' fees, the Plaintiffs' proposal contains two unique features. First, attorneys' fees will be paid prior to any payment to the class members. Second, rather than propose the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees to be awarded, the parties plan to arbitrate the issue of attorneys' fees. Judge Pauley holds that the reliance on proposed orders leads to a cookie-cutter jurisprudence. That is not how the law should develop. Unsurprisingly, the law in the district has skewed towards preliminary settlement approval since these ready-made orders—which are drafted by the plaintiffs' bar—masquerade as judicial opinions. The Judge chooses to look at the puppets rather than the shadows they cast. The Judge is not swayed by the Plaintiffs' string cite of stock decisions. Orders drafted by the counsel, especially those making findings of fact and conclusions of law that award counsel their own fees, should be given little precedential value. Accordingly, the Judge declines to follow these form decisions. As for attorneys' fees, Judge Pauley holds that the Plaintiffs' assertion that an arbitrator can decide what fees are reasonable is contrary to law. Attorneys' fees are awarded at the discretion of the court. Moreover, the parties contemplate that the arbitrator will award attorneys' fees -- within 65 days of preliminary approval -- before the claims process is completed. Since the trend in the Circuit is toward the percentage method, and the arbitration would conclude before any claims are submitted, the total recovery of the class -- the necessary denominator -- will be unknown. Thus, it makes little sense to engage an arbitrator to render a decision that will carry no weight. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley denied the Plaintiffs' motion seeking preliminary approval of class-action settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/wk58Et from Leagle.com. oanne Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joshua David Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., Neal Jamison Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph Ignatius Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Sandra Bueno, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. BHH LLC, doing business as Bell + Howell & Van Hauser LLC, Defendants, represented by Donald J. Reinhard -- donaldreinhard@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Howard B. Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Robert J. Ostojic -- ro@lefltd.com -- Leahy Eisenberg & Frankel, Ltd. & Scott Wing -- sw@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice. BLUE CROSS: Court Denies Motion to Show Cause in Love Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Federico Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion for a Show Cause Order in the case captioned RICK LOVE, M.D., et. al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO, (S.D. Fla.). The underlying motion derives from an ongoing antitrust class action in Louisiana state court. Opelousas - a non-party to In re Managed Care - filed a complaint in Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., Case No. 16-c-3647 (27th Jud. Dist. Ct. La., Aug. 24, 2016) that asserted individual and class action antitrust claims under state law against Blue Cross. In that case, Opelousas proposed a class definition defined as, inter alia, "[a]ll Louisiana healthcare providers" that contracted with Blue Cross of Louisiana and who had one or more medical bills reimbursed pursuant to such contract. At the class certification stage, Blue Cross objected to the proposed class definition on grounds that it improperly included putative class members whose claims were released by the settlement agreement approved by Southern Florida District Court in Love v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n, Case. No. 03-CV-21296, D.E. 1286 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2008) (the "Love Settlement"). Over Blue Cross's objection, the Louisiana state court ultimately issued a judgment adopting Opelousas's proposed class definition. In the order certifying the class, the Louisiana state court explained that "[c]lass certification is not the proper forum to adjudicate [the] merits of the case" and that "once the class is certified, the Defendant may then assert an affirmative defense based on Res Judicata." The Louisiana state court subsequently granted a suspensive appeal from the judgment certifying the class. While the appeal was pending in the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, Blue Cross filed the underlying motion, which asks the Southern Florida District Court to order non-party Opelousas and its counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for knowingly prosecuting claims on behalf of putative class members that were released in the Love Settlement. Alternatively, Blue Cross asks the Southern Florida District Court to issue an injunction requiring Opelousas and its counsel to cease prosecuting claims that were released in the Love Settlement and to amend the class definition in the Louisiana lawsuit. Although Opelousas did not file a written response to Blue Cross's motion, the Florida Court heard limited oral argument from counsel for both parties during a status conference set for a separate matter in In re Managed Care. Counsel for Opelousas appeared at the hearing "for the limited purposes of expressing [its] jurisdictional objections" to Blue Cross's motion. Enjoining a non-party may indeed be necessary to aid the Florida Court's jurisdiction over settlement class members or may be necessary to effectuate the Florida Court's prior approval of the Love Settlement, but in view of the Supreme Court's "constrained approach to nonparty preclusion," Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. at 313 (quoting Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 898 (2008)), the Florida Court will defer determining whether an injunction is appropriate until Opelousas articulates its position in writing. Accordingly, the Florida Court defers ruling on the Motion in the Alternative For an Injunction and requests that non-party Opelousas General Hospital Authority respond to Blue Cross's Motion in the Alternative For an Injunction. The response should address Blue Cross's arguments and any other issues raised in the Order. Should Opelousas decline this second and last opportunity to respond, the Court will rule on the papers before it. Regardless of whether Opelousas files a response, Blue Cross must file a Reply in support of its Motion in the Alternative For an Injunction, which should discuss the issues raised in the Order that were not previously addressed in the underlying Motion. Nothing in the Florida Court's Order precludes the parties from reaching a resolution without the Court's intervention. The Motion for an Order to Show Cause is denied because the Florida Court finds no basis at this time to resolve the real issue at dispute under the threat of contempt. Blue Cross is, however, granted leave to refile such motion, but only in the event the Florida Court ultimately issues an injunction and only then if the injunction is not complied with. A full-text copy of the Florida District Court's December 19, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rx96xme from Leagle.com M.D. Kenneth A. Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin David Lodish - alodish@duanemorris.com - Duane Morris, LLP, D. Brian Hufford - dbhufford@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz Haudek Block & Grossman, Harley Shepard Tropin - hst@kttlaw.com - Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, J.P. Strom, Jr. , Strom Law Firm LLC, 2110 N Beltline Blvd, Columbia, SC 29204-399, Janet L. Humphreys , Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, 2525 Ponce de Leon9th FloorMiami, FL 33134, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. , Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, 1000 Park Place Tower 2001 Park Place North, Birmingham, AL 35203, pro hac vice, Kathryn C. Harr - kharr@trrlaw.com - Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Kenneth S. Canfield – kcanfield@dsckd.com - Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine LLC, Kenneth I. Trujillo , Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, 3 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033, Mario A. Pacella , Strom Law Firm LLC, 2110 N Beltline Blvd, Columbia, SC 29204-3999 Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendant, represented by Adam P. Feinberg - afeinberg@milchev.com - Miller & Chevalier, Alvin David Lodish - alodish@duanemorris.com - Duane Morris, LLP, Chester T. Kamin - ckamin@jenner.com - Jenner & Block, Raquel M. Fernandez - rfernandez@bilzin.com - Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, Kathy-Ann Webb Marlin , Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Melissa Cade Pallett-Vasquez , Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131-2336 & Steven E. Siff , McDermott Will & Emery LLP. BLUE MONKEY VAPES: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Monkey Vapes, Inc. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BLUE MONKEY VAPES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00856-WB (E.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blue Monkey is a distributor of vape supplies in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 981-5400 E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Prelim Approval of $600K Ferrell Deal Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN FERRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00332-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the Court grant the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and certification of the class for purposes of the settlement. Plaintiffs Ferrell and Cheryl Baker commenced the action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Defendant Buckingham, alleging various wage and hour violations under California state law, and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant specializes in property management of residential real estate and manages thousands of units in the State of California. Ferrell was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt Maintenance/Painting Technician, and Baker was employed as a non-exempt Community Manager. The Plaintiffs' principal allegations are that the Defendant has violated the California Labor Code and the FLSA by, inter alia, failing to properly pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide compliant meal and rest periods or pay associated premiums, failing to timely pay wages upon termination, failing to provide compliant wage statements, failing to maintain requisite payroll records, and failing to reimburse necessary business-related expenses. They contend that the Defendant's conduct constitutes unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code and gives rise to penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). As a result, they contend that they and the "Class Members" and the "Proposed FLSA Collective Members" are entitled, inter alia, unpaid wages, penalties including but not limited to those available under the PAGA, and attorneys' fees. The Defendant denies any liability of any kind associated with the claims and allegations, and further denies that the Plaintiffs, the Class Members, or the Proposed FLSA Collective Members are entitled to any relief. It also denies that the case is appropriate for class or representative treatment for any other purpose other than the proposed settlement. The Defendant has obtained release agreements and arbitration agreements for several Class Members. The action proceeds on the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint filed with the state court on March 5, 2019. The FAC brings the following causes of actions: (1) violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 & 1198 for unpaid overtime; (2) violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 & 512(a) for unpaid meal premiums; (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 for unpaid rest period premiums; (4) violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, & 1197.1 for unpaid minimum wages; (5) violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 & 202 for final wages not timely paid; (6) violation of California Labor Code Section 204 for wages not timely paid during employment; (7) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) for non-compliant wage statements; (8) violation of California Labor Code Section 1174(d) for failure to keep requisite payroll records; (9) violation of California Labor Code Section 1198 for unpaid reporting time pay; (10) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 & 2802 for unreimbursed business expenses; (11) violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (12) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime; (13) violation of the FLSA for unpaid minimum wages; and (14) violation of the PAGA. The parties engaged in additional negotiations regarding settlement, and ultimately reached a settlement to address points of concern raised by the Fresno County Superior Court. The changes included, but were not limited to: (1) narrowing the class to "Property Employees" only, who like the named Plaintiffs, predominately worked on properties managed by Defendant and thus had more common experiences and claims; (2) adding a claim under the FLSA and allocating separate settlement amounts for FLSA and class claims; and (3) guaranteeing a higher minimum distribution floor for the class settlement amount. On Nov. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement agreement and for certification of the class for purposes of settlement that is currently before the Court for consideration. On Nov. 26, 2019, the Court issued a minute order resetting the hearing on the motion for Jan. 15, 2020, and on Jan. 13, 2020, the Court vacated the hearing after finding the matter suitable for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g). For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs state in their moving papers that the parties agree to certification of the following class consisting of approximately 803 individuals: All current and former non-exempt Property Employees of Defendant within the State of California from August 10, 2010 to the date the Settlement is preliminarily approved by the Court. The Class Members who submit a timely and valid "Class Claim Form, which will be mailed after preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of the Class, will be bound by the settlement agreement and receive a share of the "Class Settlement." For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of the Proposed FLSA Collective consisting of all current and former Property Employees of Defendant within the State of California from Aug. 8, 2010 to the date the Order is signed by the Court. Property Employees means non-exempt employees with the following job positions during the Settled Period: Area Relief Manager, Assistant Community Manager, Community Manager, Contact Assistant Manager, Grounds Keeper, Janitor, Maintenance Technician, Porter, Residential Service Coordinator, and Security. The Defendant will pay a "Maximum Settlement Amount" of up to $600,000 on a claims-made basis. The "Net Settlement Amount" is the amount remaining after deducting the following from the Maximum Settlement Amount: (1) attorneys' fees of up to 35% of the Maximum Settlement Amount, for a total of $210,000, plus reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses up to $35,000, for a total of up to $245,000 ("Fees and Costs Award") to the "Class/Collective Counsel"; (2) "Incentive Awards" of up to $3,000 each to Plaintiffs Kevin Ferrell and Cheryl Baker for a total of $6,000; (3) $3,750 to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency ("LWDA") for its share of the "PAGA Settlement Amount"; and (4) "Settlement Administration Costs," currently estimated to be $16,000. Additionally, a 25% portion of the PAGA Settlement Amount allocated to aggrieved employees ($1,250 of a total $5,000), will remain part of the Net Settlement Amount. Assuming that the allocations toward these payments are paid in full, the Net Settlement Amount that will be available for distribution to Class Members who submit timely and valid Class Claim Forms, and Proposed FLSA Collective Members who submit timely and valid FLSA Opt-In Forms, is estimated to be $329,250. Ninety-five percent of the Net Settlement Amount, inclusive of the Employee's PAGA portion, will be allocated to the Class Settlement and available to be distributed to Claimants, and the remaining 5% of the Net Settlement Amount will be allocated to the FLSA Settlement and distributed to FLSA Collective Members. The Class Settlement Amount is estimated to be $312,787.50, and will be distributed to the Claimants based upon the number of weeks they worked as Property Employees during the Settled Period. At least 63% of the Class Settlement Amount will be distributed to Claimants. In the event that less than 63% of the Class Settlement Amount is claimed by Claimants, each Claimant's share will be proportionately increased on a pro rata basis based on their number of Workweeks. Any amount of the Class Settlement Amount over the Minimum Distribution Floor that is not claimed by the Claimants will be used to pay the Defendant's share of payroll taxes and contributions in connection with the wages portion of "Estimated Class Settlement Shares" and "Estimated FLSA Settlement Shares" ("Employers Taxes"), and the remaining amount (if any) will be retained by the Defendant. The FLSA Settlement Amount, which is 5% of the Net Settlement Amount, or approximately $16,462.50, will be distributed to FLSA Collective Members based upon their Workweeks compared to the number of Workweeks of all FLSA Collective Members. The entire FLSA Settlement Amount will be paid out to FLSA Collective Members. Notwithstanding attention to the concerns that may need to be further addressed at the final approval hearing, including but not limited to the proposed attorney's fees award and valuation of the claims in light of the actual rate of claim forms submitted following notice, Magistrate Judge Boone recommends granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Considering the risks the Plaintiffs would face in taking the case to trial, together with the value of all of the claims being released and the value of the proposed settlement to the class members in light of the apparent strengths and weakness of the claims and defenses, he concludes that the proposed settlement, on the current record, is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" within the meaning of Rule 23(e)(2). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the following: 1. The motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement be granted; 2. The following Class and Proposed FLSA Collective be certified for settlement purposes only: All current and former Property Employees of Defendant within the State of California from Aug. 8, 2010 to the date the Order is signed by the Court. Property Employees means non-exempt employees with the following job positions during the Settled Period: Area Relief Manager, Assistant Community Manager, Community Manager, Contact Assistant Manager, Grounds Keeper, Janitor, Maintenance Technician, Porter, Residential Service Coordinator, and Security. 3. The Court finds that, for purposes of the settlement, the above-defined Class meets all of the requirements for class certification. For purposes of the settlement, the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied; 4. Plaintiffs Cheryl Baker and Kevin Ferrell be appointed as the Class Representatives for the Class and Proposed FLSA Collective; 5. Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Joanna Ghosh of Lawyers for Justice, PC, and Amir Nayebdadash and Heather Davis of Protection Law Group LLP, be appointed as counsel for the Class and Proposed FLSA Collective; 6. The proposed language and manner of distributing the notice of settlement be approved as the best notice practicable under the circumstances; 7. Simpluris, Inc., be appointed as the Settlement Administrator to administer the settlement pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement; and 8. The Court set a final approval and fairness hearing and schedule based upon the schedule set forth in the motion for preliminary approval. The findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the action. Any party may file written objections, without delay, to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Findings & recommendations Order is available at https://is.gd/AwhMoP from Leagle.com. Kevin Ferrell, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated & Cheryl Baker, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Joanna Ghosh -- joanna@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers For Justice, PC. Buckingham Property Management, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Ellen C. Cohen -- ellencohenphd@aol.com -- Call & Jensen & John Thomas Egley -- jegley@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen, A Professional Corporation. CALIFORNIA: Assembly Bill 5 Is Unconstitutional, Crossley Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CROSSLEY; BART BAILEY; LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, LLC; VALLEY DIRECT MARKETING LLC; IN THE FIELD, INC.; DISCOVERY PETITION MANAGEMENT LLC; PIR DATA PROCESSING INC.; CAROLYN OSTIC dba VOTER DIRECT, and CHRIS BRENTLINGER dba BAY AREA PETITIONS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER BECERRA, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and "JOHN DOE," in his/her official capacity, Case No. 3:20-cv-00284-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2020), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other relief determining that California Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5)--a recently enacted statute that became effective on January 1, 2020--is unconstitutional. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief determining that the Individual Plaintiffs, and the similarly-situated "Collectors", are independent contractors--rather than employees--under the so-called "ABC test" imposed by AB 5. The Plaintiffs contend that AB 5 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it draws classifications between various categories of workers without a rational basis for distinction. Likewise, the statute draws irrational distinctions between independent service providers and non-independent service providers that perform substantially the same work, disfavoring independent service providers relative to similarly situated non-independent service providers. Laws unconstitutionally singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. The Plaintiffs insist that AB 5 is such an exceptional and invalid form of legislation. The Plaintiffs are engaged in data processing business. State of California is a sovereign State. Xavier Becerra is being sued in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of California, with authority to enforce AB 5.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Baxter, Esq. WILKE FLEURY LLP 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 441-2430 Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 E-mail: dbaxter@wilkefleury.com CAPITAL ONE: Court-Okayed Interchange Fees Pact Brought to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement of US$5.5 billion for the monetary damages class in the antitrust suit related to interchange fees has received final approval from the trial court, and has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks, including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of interchange fees. Other merchants have asserted similar claims in separate lawsuits, and while these separate cases did not name any issuing banks, Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One, have entered settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating the liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all interchange-related cases. The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was invalidated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June 2016, and the suit was bifurcated into separate class actions seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively. In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012 settlement and have pursued their own claims. The claims by the injunctive relief class have not been resolved, but the settlement of US$5.5 billion for the monetary damages class has received final approval from the trial court, and has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Visa and MasterCard have also settled several of the opt-out cases, which required non-material payments from issuing banks, including Capital One. Visa created a litigation escrow account following its initial public offering of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for its member banks, and any settlements related to MasterCard-allocated losses have either already been paid or are reflected in the Company's reserves. Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CAPITAL ONE: Defends Securities Suit over Cybersecurity Incident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation is defending itself in a putative class action pending in a multi-district litigation panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, related to the Company's information security standards and practices, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Capital One said, "The Company and certain officers have also been named as defendants in a putative class action pending in the MDL alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions in securities filings relating to our information security standards and practices. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July 23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages, costs and other relief." Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits on Cybersecurity Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation remains a defendant in approximately 72 putative consumer class action cases (61 in U.S. federal courts and 11 in Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Cybersecurity Incident announced on July 29, 2019, and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action. On October 2, 2019, the U.S. consumer class actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a multi-district litigation ("MDL") panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Supplemental Briefing Ordered in Jones Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefing and/or Evidence in the case captioned HAROLD JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02229-EMC. (N.D. Cal.). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. Based on that review, the Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence these issues: * How did Plaintiffs arrive at the conclusion that the California PAGA claim was worth approximately $6.8 million? * Why does the California class include individuals who attended pre-employment training? Why do the classes for the other jurisdictions not include such individuals? * Do the parties have a sense of how long checks will be maintained by each state's Unclaimed Property Division or other such similar agency? Did the parties discuss a cy pres beneficiary as an alternative? * Was any discovery, formal or informal, taken with respect to any refinery? Was any discovery, formal or informal, taken with respect to the alleged joint employer relationships between CS and the various refineries? * What is the estimated lodestar with respect to attorney's fees? Plaintiffs shall also provide the Court with the underlying information used to calculate the lodestar. In addition, Plaintiffs shall provide estimates as to many hours were spent on the major litigation tasks. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/u6q463b from Leagle.com Harold Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Genea Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell -ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, David Christopher Leimbach - dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Michelle Son Lim - mlim@schneiderwallace.com Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Scott Lewis Gordon , Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Tierre Crummie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian - edwin@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, Arby Aiwazian -arby@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, David Christopher Leimbach , Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jill Jessica Parker - jill@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, Michelle Son Lim - mlim@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Scott Lewis Gordon , Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Vanessa Marie Rodriguez - vrodriguez@maternlawgroup.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC & Carolyn Hunt Cottrell , Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. CertifiedSafety, Inc., an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whyte Tran -CWTran@winston.com - Winston Strawn LLP, Emilie Consuelo Woodhead - ewoodhead@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP, Jason Scott Campbell - jscampbell@winston.com - Winston and Strawn LLP, Laura Rose Petroff - lpetroff@winston.com - Winston Strawn LLP & Tristan Reid Kirk , Thompson Coburn LLP, 525 West Main Street Suite 300 Belleville, IL 62220 Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Interested Party, represented by Aaron L. Agenbroad , Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.2300 CIT GROUP: March 19 Preliminary Hearing Set for Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A preliminary court hearing on a motion seeking preliminary approval of CIT Group Inc.'s class settlement in lawsuits related to Hawaiian foreclosure claims is scheduled for March 19, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Based on recent rulings of the Hawaii Supreme Court, 43 individual lawsuits were filed against CIT in Hawaii alleging technical violations in non-judicial foreclosures. Similar cases have been filed against other mortgage lenders in Hawaii. The Hawaii Supreme Court did not establish a clear methodology for calculating alleged damages if a violation is proven and there is substantial dispute in this regard. In many instances the borrower had no equity in the home at the time of foreclosure. Damages sought in these cases include any lost equity, compensation for loss of use of the house and, in some cases, treble or punitive damages under Hawaii's unfair practices law. The Company has settled all of the individual lawsuits alleging foreclosure violations. In addition to the individual lawsuits, plaintiffs' counsel filed six putative class actions alleging the same foreclosure defects violate Hawaii's unfair and deceptive acts and practices statute. The Company was not named as a defendant in any of the class actions, but serviced loans at the time of foreclosure on behalf of various securitization trusts. In November 2019, the Company signed a class settlement agreement to resolve the claims of the putative class members in the class actions for approximately US$9.25 million. In order to effectuate the settlement, a new class action was filed against the Company on February 7, 2020, and concurrently plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. A preliminary court hearing on the motion is scheduled for March 19, 2020. The Company said, "Based on existing reserves, CIT does not expect the settlement will have a material impact." CIT Group Inc. operates as the holding company for CIT Bank, N.A. that provides banking and related services to commercial and individual customers. The company operates through Commercial Banking and Consumer Banking segments. The Company was founded in 1908 and is based in New York, New York. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Franchi Says Merger Deal Breaches Securities Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is facing a putative class action styled, Franchi, et al. v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00078 (D. Del.), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Company entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, with AK Steel Holding Corporation and Pepper Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs. Pursuant to the deal, Merger Sub is combined into AK Steel, with AK Steel surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs, subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. On January 17, 2020, a purported stockholder of AK Steel filed the putative class action lawsuit in federal court in Delaware against AK Steel, the directors of AK Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the proposed Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit relating to the Merger, among other requested relief, seeks to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company said it believes the class action is without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates four iron ore mines, including the Tilden mine in Michigan; and the Northshore, United Taconite, and Hibbing mines in Minnesota. It serves integrated steel companies and steel producers. The company was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its name to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Nessim Class Suit over Merger Deal Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit, styled, Nessim, et al. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00850 (S.D.N.Y.), related to the Company's merger agreement with AK Steel Holding Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Company entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, with AK Steel Holding Corporation and Pepper Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs. Pursuant to the deal, Merger Sub is combined into AK Steel, with AK Steel surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs, subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. On January 31, 2020, a purported shareholder of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. filed the putative class action lawsuit in federal court in New York against the Company and each of its directors. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the proposed Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit relating to the Merger, among other requested relief, seeks to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company said it believes the class action is without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates four iron ore mines, including the Tilden mine in Michigan; and the Northshore, United Taconite, and Hibbing mines in Minnesota. It serves integrated steel companies and steel producers. The company was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its name to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: SEC Info on Merger Deal Misleading, Pate Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is facing the putative class action lawsuit styled, Pate, et al. v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. CV 2020 01 0196 (Ohio Common Pleas, Butler County), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Company entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, with AK Steel Holding Corporation and Pepper Merger Sub Inc., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs. Pursuant to the deal, Merger Sub is combined into AK Steel, with AK Steel surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs, subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. On January 28, 2020, a purported stockholder of AK Steel filed the putative class action lawsuit in state court in Ohio against AK Steel, the directors of AK Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Merger Sub. Among other things, the complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the AK Steel directors and aiding and abetting claims against AK Steel, the Company and Merger Sub in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed in connection with the proposed Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The lawsuit relating to the Merger, among other requested relief, seeks to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company said it believes the class action is without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates four iron ore mines, including the Tilden mine in Michigan; and the Northshore, United Taconite, and Hibbing mines in Minnesota. It serves integrated steel companies and steel producers. The company was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its name to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. COMMUNITY HEALTH: March 20 Deadline to Respond to Padilla Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. has until March 20, 2020, to respond to the consolidated class complaint filed in the securities class action styled, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019. The purported federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 30, 2019. It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock. On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January 21, 2020. The deadline for the Company's response to the consolidated class complaint is March 20, 2020. The Company said, "We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the purported class action styled, Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation, and Principal Global Investors, LLC., is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019. This purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other marketplace alternatives. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 18, 2019, which is pending. The Company said, "We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Says Class Suits over 2014 Cyber-Attack Resolved ------------------------------------------------------------------ Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the year ended December 31, 2019, that all class actions and litigation filed related to a 2014 data breach incident have been resolved. The Company also disclosed that it is still responding to two government investigations related to the 2014 cyber-attack. The first is being conducted by various State Attorneys Generals, and the second is being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. The Company is cooperating fully with both investigations. The Company said, "On August 18, 2014, our computer network was the target of an external, criminal cyber-attack that we believe occurred between April and June, 2014. We and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by us in connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass our security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or clinical information. We worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident and continues to advise us regarding security and monitoring efforts. We have provided appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal and state law. We have offered identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Bowden Class Action in Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for class certification are still pending in the class action styled, Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center. In its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company said, "This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on September 7, 2016, claiming our affiliated Ruston, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. Our motion for summary judgment is pending, as is plaintiff's motion for class certification. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Class Suit over Hospital Liens ------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to face the class action lawsuit styled, Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on August 3, 2016, claiming our formerly affiliated Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The court has certified a class and denied our motion for summary judgment. We appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decisions on March 7, 2019. We filed an application for writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May 29, 2019. Plaintiff's motion for approval of notice of class action was granted on October 24, 2019. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Zwick Partners Class Suit in Tennessee Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for the class action styled, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta, is set for July 7, 2020, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019. The purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities laws. The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018. The Company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to plaintiffs' class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the additional claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on that same date. On April 12, 2019, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's order granting class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was denied on July 31, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court denied on August 2, 2019. The trial for this matter is set for July 7, 2020. The Company said, "We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. CORECIVIC INC: Grae Class Suit in Fact Discovery ------------------------------------------------ CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the case styled, Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., is currently in the fact discovery phase of litigation. Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016. In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the Company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated. The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share price of the Company's stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative class of shareholders. On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2019, the District Court certified the class proposed by the plaintiff. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's appeal of the class certification order on August 23, 2019. The case is currently in the fact discovery phase of litigation. The Company said, "We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance, with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged claims which may mitigate the risk that such litigation would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with the scale and experience needed to solve tough government challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Ornelas Suit in California Superior Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as MARIA ORNELAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND AGGRIEVED v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; GMRI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; OLIVE GARDEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DARDEN DIRECT DISTRIBUTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; and FCPT GARDEN PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-100457 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 14, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Clark. GMRI operates a chain of restaurants. Darden Restaurants is an American multi-brand restaurant operator headquartered in Orlando.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey "Jeff" G. Granillo, Esq. CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL P.C. 605 Chestnut St., No. 1700 Chattanooga, TN 37450 Telephone: 423 757 0264 Facsimile: 423 508 1264 E-mail: jgranillo@chamblisslaw.com DUBELL LUMBER: Class Certification Bid Denied Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BERNARD HEINZ v. DUBELL LUMBER CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-08778-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order on March 3, 2020: 1. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for default judgment; and The Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for class certification or a renewed motion for default judgment on or before March 24, 2020, says the Court. Dubell provides wood building materials.[CC] DYNAMITE DOG: Chambers Suit Seeks OT & Regular Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ALISON CHAMBERS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. DYNAMITE DOG TRAINING AND SERVICES, INC. and JAMIE DIAZ, Case No. CACE-20-002848 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 15, 2020), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime and regular compensation owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that throughout her employment with the Defendant, she worked in excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime and/or was not paid regular time. She adds that she was improperly paid as a 1099 employee where, in actuality, she was a W-2 employee based upon the factors set forth by the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Economic Realities Test. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation, Ms. Chambers has been damaged in the loss of wages and has incurred and is incurring reasonable attorney's fees, says the complaint. Dynamite Dog offers training program for dogs including In-Home Private Sessions, Group Classes, Day Training, and Board & Train lessons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Behren, Esq. BEHREN LAW FIRM 1930 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 4 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 636-3802 Facsimile: (772) 252-3365 E-mail: Scott@behrenlaw.com EASY DEAL: Justin Sues Over Mechanical Issues of Bought Vehicle --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JUSTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EASY DEAL AUTO BROKERS, CORP., Case No. CACE-20-002813 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 15, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act arising from mechanical problems of a purchased vehicle. On November 30, 2019, Mr. Justin entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the purchase of a 2013 Mercedes Benz C250 and furnished $6,000.00 as down payment. Before purchasing the Vehicle, Mr. Justin made specific inquiry as to the condition of the Vehicle. He was assured by the Defendant that the Vehicle was in good condition and no repairs were needed to be done on the Vehicle. Relying on the statements made by Defendant, he entered into a Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement for the purchase of the Vehicle. Shortly after entering into the agreements, Mr. Justin started experiencing mechanical issues with the Vehicle, and returned to the Defendant where he was charged $540 to address the mechanical issue. When he received the Vehicle after repairs were done, he continued to experience mechanical problems with the Vehicle rendering it inoperable. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant was aware of the issues the Vehicle had and misrepresented the condition of the Vehicle. He adds that the Defendant also has a history of claims against it, which carry similar facts and circumstances as he experienced. The FDUTPA claims, asserted on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly aggrieved consumers, seek declaratory relief in addition to actual damages in excess of $30,000.00, and attorneys' fees and cost as provided for under FDUTPA. Easy Deal is doing business in the automobiles and other motor vehicles industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garry B. Louima, Esq. FIRST STEP LEGAL SOLUTIONS, PLLC 7875 NW 57 Street, No. 25405 Tamarac, FL 33320 Telephone: 954 600-0651 E-mail: Louima@FirstStepLS.com ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Merger-Related Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------- EchoStar Corporation and the other defendants has filed answers to the amended complaint in a class action suit related to its merger with DISH Network Corporation (DISH), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In May 2019, the Company and one of its former subsidiaries, EchoStar BSS Corporation ("BSS Corp."), entered into a master transaction agreement (the "Master Transaction Agreement") with DISH and a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH ("Merger Sub"). On July 2, 2019, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust, purporting to sue on behalf of a class of EchoStar Corporation's stockholders, filed a complaint in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada against the Company's directors, Charles W. Ergen, R. Stanton Dodge, Anthony M. Federico, Pradman P. Kaul, C. Michael Schroeder, Jeffrey R. Tarr, William D. Wade, and Michael T. Dugan; the Company's officer, David J. Rayner; EchoStar Corporation; HSS; the Company's former subsidiary BSS Corp.; and DISH and its subsidiary Merger Sub. On September 5, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On October 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint removing Messrs. Dodge, Federico, Kaul, Schroeder, Tarr and Wade as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that Mr. Ergen, as the Company's controlling stockholder, breached fiduciary duties to EchoStar Corporation's minority stockholders by structuring the BSS Transaction with inadequate consideration and improperly influencing the Company's and HSS' boards of directors to approve the BSS Transaction. The amended complaint also alleges that the other defendants aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Common Stock, and other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. On November 11, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed separate motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and during a hearing on January 13, 2020 the court denied these motions. On February 10, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed answers to the amended complaint. The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict its outcome with any degree of certainty." EchoStar Corporation, incorporated on October 12, 2007, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of satellite operations, video delivery solutions, digital set-top boxes, and broadband satellite technologies and services for home and office, delivering network technologies, managed services, and solutions for enterprises and governments. The Company operates through three segments: Hughes, EchoStar Technologies (ETC) and EchoStar Satellite Services (ESS). The company is based in Englewood, Colorado. EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the cases pending in the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident remain stayed pending the resolution of the U.S. consolidated consumer class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (the "U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation"). Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against the Company in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases were transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case. These cases remain stayed pending resolution of the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Court Denies Bid for Rehearing on Class Counsel Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- The objecting plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc regarding the recalculation of the attorneys' fee award the class counsel has been denied, according to Equifax Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC, et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award. Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15, 2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On March 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's lead counsel appointment. On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the objectors' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The parties re-engaged in settlement discussions, including participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and reached an agreement to again settle the monetary claims. Settlement documents were filed with the District Court on April 14, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, conditionally certified the settlement class, and appointed class counsel and administrator. A Final Fairness Hearing was held on December 11, 2017 and on April 6, 2018, the Court granted final approval. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 7, 2018. Following the Notice of Appeal, the parties reached a Stipulation Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs with the District Court subject to affirmance of the settlement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 12, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the settlement and remanded to the District Court for recalculation of the attorneys' fee award to class counsel. On January 10, 2020, the objecting plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc which was denied. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Has Initial Pact to Resolve 4 Cybersecurity Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it has reached agreements in principle with three Indian Tribes and the City of Chicago to resolve separate lawsuits related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident. Three Indian Tribes and the City of Chicago filed separate suits with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, which were subsequently transferred to the MDL Court. The Indian Tribes brought their claims purportedly on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the three Indian Tribes’ claims as well as an agreement in principle to resolve the City of Chicago’s lawsuit. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Nationwide Class Okayed in Ontario Cybersecurity Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ An Ontario, Canada court overseeing the case related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident has granted certification of a nationwide class that includes impacted Canadians as well as Canadians who had subscription products with Equifax Inc. between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017, according to Equifax Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company has sought leave to appeal this decision. Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have been filed against the Company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of a larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident or earlier and were not impacted by the incident. On October 21, 2019, the court in the Quebec case dismissed the plaintiff's motion for authorization to institute a class action. On December 13, 2019, the court in the active Ontario case granted certification of a nationwide class that includes impacted Canadians as well as Canadians who had subscription products with Equifax between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017. The Company has sought leave to appeal this decision. All remaining purported class actions are at preliminary stages. In addition, one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The court's order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: No Timetable Yet for Data Breach Settlement Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- WBEN reports that millions of people impacted by the 2017 Equifax breach have still not received the $125 payment promoted by the settlement agency. The settlement agency still has no timetable for sending out the money for the millions affected by the breach. Last year, those affected by the breach could file a claim to get the $125 or free credit monitoring. The company set a deadline for an extended claims period deadline for January 22, though some have received emails from the administrator as recently as February requesting information that may not have entered during initial claim, such as the name of their credit monitoring agency. In September 2017, the credit monitoring company announced a data breach that impacted the personal information of 147 million people. Equifax denied any wrongdoing as part of a $700 million class action settlement. When Noelle Carter of Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Buffalo first heard about additional emails sent by the company, she had fears that it was a scam. "If you go directly to the Equifax breach website, you'll see they say the period to confirm your credit monitoring to get your financial reimbursement has expired," Carter said. "I would be very wary of any emails you receive regarding the Equifax breach asking you to verify information." Noelle Carter of Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Buffalo on Equifax breach settlement developments A phone call to the Equifax breach settlement administrator confirmed that the e-mail sent on February 1 was legitimate. Still, Carter said you should be on alert and said to double check hyperlinks they send you by hovering your cursor over the link to see the actual site you would go to. "It may actually not be the Equifax site," she said. "It might be a phishing email that can get your information and open you up to additional threat of identity theft." The Federal Trade Commission warned consumers of fake settlement websites last July. They remind consumers that you'll never have to pay to file a claim for benefits and anyone who calls you to try and get you to file a claim is almost certainly a scammer. Carter recommends that if you fall victim to a phishing email to monitor your credit report annually to catch any fraudulent activity. She also urges anyone worried about their information to place a fraud alert on their credit report. "That way if anyone tries to open a new account, the company who is trying to access your credit report to approve that credit needs to contact you personally to verify it's actually you who is trying to take out that line of credit," Carter said. "If you're not looking to open up any new types of credit . . . you can actually put a freeze on your credit report, which means no one can access your credit report at all. That will stop anyone from opening up credit in your name. You would have to unfreeze your credit report if you want to apply for any kind of credit." It's unlikely that people who requested the $125 will receive the full amount. The amount you receive may be significantly lower depending on the validity, number, and amount of claims filed. Reports surfaced that Chinese militants were behind the 2017 hack. Chinese authorities denied any involvement. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Pact Reached in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in which the Company agreed to create a settlement fund for the benefit of class members, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions regarding the Company's cybersecurity systems and controls was filed against the Company and its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On January 28, 2019, the court dismissed claims against certain individual defendants and claims challenging certain statements, but allowed other claims against Equifax and the Company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to proceed. On February 12, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the securities class action lawsuit in which the Company agreed to create a settlement fund for the benefit of class members. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including certification of a settlement class, notice, and preliminary and final court approvals. The Company can provide no assurance that all conditions will be satisfied or that the necessary court approvals will be obtained. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Reached with Financial Institutions ----------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to enter into a class-wide settlement with certain financial institutions, Equifax said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Certain class actions were filed by financial institutions and transferred to the MDL Court (the "Financial Institutions MDL Litigation"). These class actions allege that the financial institutions' businesses have been placed at risk due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, generally assert common law claims such as claims for negligence, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims and seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. The Company moved to dismiss the financial institutions' consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, and the MDL Court dismissed certain claims, while allowing other claims to proceed. The financial institution plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their class action complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 18, 2019. The majority of the claims which the financial institutions sought to revive by amendment, however, remained dismissed. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to enter into a class-wide settlement of the remaining financial institutions' claims. Upon submission of the final settlement documents and necessary court approvals, the settlement will resolve any remaining claims that could be asserted by the financial institutions before the MDL Court. The settlement contemplates payment for claims up to a maximum amount and certain non-monetary relief. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including notice, and preliminary and final court approvals. The Company said, "We can provide no assurance that all conditions will be satisfied or that the necessary court approvals will be obtained." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Underway in Pennsylvania Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the class action suit pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, one of the initial named plaintiffs in the financial institutions track of a multi-district litigation filed a purported class action suit on July 12, 2019, against the company in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania. The claims being asserted in this matter are substantially similar to claims that previously were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for lack of standing. The Company filed preliminary objections to the complaint on September 5, 2019, and a hearing on the preliminary objections is scheduled for June 29, 2020. The Company said, "The settlement is subject to court approval, and we can provide no assurance that the necessary court approval will be obtained." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Booster Seats Are Unsafe, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Brown and Marcella Reynolds, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00062-WHR (S.D. Ohio., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated relevant state consumer protection acts by fraudulently concealing realistic condition of its in-house side-impact testing of Big Kid booster seats. According to the complaint, Evenflo's dishonesty and deceptive marketing strategy has been phenomenally successful: since launch, Evenflo has sold more than 18 million Big Kid booster seats, making the product one of the best-selling models in the United States. It has likely earned hundreds of millions of dollars of profits on these dubious safety products that are, in reality, a mere shadow of what Evenflo claims. On Evenflo's Web site and in its marketing, Evenflo tells parents and guardians that its in-house side-impact testing is "rigorous," simulates realistic conditions, and is equivalent to federal testing. In reality, the Plaintiffs say, Evenflo's tests are anything but: videos reveal that when child-sized crash dummies seated in Big Kid booster seats are subjected to the forces of a T-bone collision, they are thrown far out of their shoulder belts. The Plaintiffs contend that as a consequence of its cynical profiteering, Evenflo has now subjected millions of children to the risk of grave injury and death. Meanwhile, it continues to hold itself out to the public as keenly concerned with children's safety. According to Sarah Haverstick, a "Safety Advocate" and "Child Passenger Safety Technician" at Evenflo, "safety is a word that is embedded into [Evenflo's] DNA and will always be our number one priority for our customers." Had Evenflo disclosed the results of its side-impact testing to the public, no parent or guardian would have purchased a Big Kid booster seat, the Plaintiffs note. Instead, Evenflo kept these tests secret, and embarked on a disinformation campaign aimed at convincing millions that its Big Kid boosterseats are safe. The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other persons and entities nationwide, who purchased a "Big Kid" booster seat manufactured by Evenflo between 2008 and the present. Evenflo is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and principally engages in the design, research and development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer branded juvenile products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG S CHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604 Telephone: 513.345.8291 Facsimile: 513.345.8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Ted Wojcik, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com tedw@hbsslaw.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Car Seats Are Unsafe, Wilder Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH WILDER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00061-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2020), asserts claims for beach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act relating to the alleged deceptive advertisement of Big Kid car seats. Evenflo advertises itself prominently as a producer of "safe" children's products, including representing prominently that "SAFETY IS OUR No. 1 PRIORITY." One of the products that Evenflo produces is the "Big Kid" car seat (the "Car Seat"), marketed as being safe for children that weigh between 30 and 110 pounds. The Plaintiff contends that Evenflo markets the Big Kid line of car seats prominently as "Side Impact Tested: Meets or exceeds all applicable federal safety standards and Evenflo's side impact standards." This labeling implies that Evenflo has been tested and found to meet federal safety standards for side impact testing. However, the Plaintiff contends, neither the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, nor any other federal agency has any required, or even standard, test for side impact collisions for child seats. On July 2018, Mr. Wilder purchased two Evenflo Big Kid LX car seats from a Walmart in Fort Wright, Kentucky, paying approximately $40 for each. He purchased the Evenflo Bid Kid LX car seats for use by his son, then 38 lbs. He purchased the Evenflo Big Kid LX car seats after reading the packaging which included representations that the Big Kid LX was safe for children, who weighed as little as 30 pounds. Evenflo produces products for parents and small children, ranging from strollers, car seats, baby safety gates, high chairs, bottles, and breast pumps, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle L. Kranz, Esq. Carasusana B. Wall, Esq. ZOLL & KRANZ LLC 6620 West Central Avenue, Suite 100 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 841-9623 Facsimile: (419) 841-9719 E-mail: michelle@toledolaw.com cara@toledolaw.com - and - Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: smith@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com reynolds@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com EXPERIAN INFO: 9th Cir. Orders Fees Recalculation in Radcliffe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Memorandum affirming in part and reversing in part a district court judgment granting approval of a class action settlement in the appellate case captioned ROBERT RADCLIFFE; CHESTER CARTER; MARIA FALCON; CLIFTON C. SEALE III; ARNOLD LOVELL, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSE HERNANDEZ; ROBERT RANDALL; BERTRAM ROBINSON; KATHRYN PIKE; LEWIS MANN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; TRANS UNION LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-55606. (9th Cir.). Objecting Plaintiffs (Radcliffe, et al.) appeal the district court's approval of a pre-certification class action settlement between Settling Plaintiffs (Hernandez, et al.) and Defendants (Experian, et al.). The Ninth Circuit reviews the approval of a class-action settlement for abuse of discretion. The Ninth Circuit notes that the Objecting Plaintiffs' optimistic valuation of Defendants' potential liabilities was undercut by substantial litigation risks, which drastically reduced the expected value of the class's claims. The parties sharpened their valuations of the case over 14 years of contested litigation, not to mention four trips to the Ninth Circuit on appeal. They settled on terms mutually agreeable to the parties involved, except, of course, Objecting Plaintiffs. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit rejects Objecting Plaintiffs' assertion that the settlement fails to treat class members equitably relative to each other. Rule 23's flexible standard allows for the unequal distribution of settlement funds so long as the distribution formula takes account of legitimate considerations and the settlement remains fair, reasonable, and adequate. Settling Plaintiffs sought to provide additional relief to plaintiffs who alleged more concrete material harms than other class members. Nothing in Rule 23 and no precedent cited by Objecting Plaintiffs prohibits parties from tying distribution of settlement funds to actual harm. Objecting Plaintiffs' final contention is that Settling Counsel created a conflict of interest by opting to repay its debt to the class in new benefits rather than deducting the costs of re-notice from the fee award. As is, this contention is less easily dismissed, the Ninth Circuit notes. At the very least, the structure of the attorneys' fee award in this case created the possibility of a conflict of interest with the class. That said, multiple factors counsel restraint, the Ninth Circuit says. Most importantly, given that Rule 23's flexible standard governs this dispute, the Ninth Circuit concludes that the settlement is fair and that Settling Counsel ably represented the class. There is a further factor here that weighs in favor of approving the settlement, the Ninth Circuit says. This long-standing dispute has cost the parties a great deal already. Further time spent litigating will serve only to devour more and more of the settlement fund, which would be better spent providing relief to injured parties. Settling Plaintiffs and Defendants have achieved a mutually agreeable solution, though not without each side feeling the predictable pains of negotiation. The Ninth Circuit is satisfied that the settlement provides adequate relief to the class. The Ninth Circuit remands for reconsideration of the attorneys' fee award. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the district court's fee calculation appears to have taken into account Settling Counsel's debt to the class in other ways, such that it may be unwarranted for the district court to simply subtract the $6 million estimated cost of re-notice from the $8,262,848 fee award currently in place. In sum, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's approval of the settlement; but reverses and remands the award of attorneys' fees to class counsel for recalculation of the fee award. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 12, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://bit.ly/2Wdrh6V from Leagle.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Narrows Claims in Mader FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MADER, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 3787 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mader commenced the putative class action against Defendant Experian. The Complaint alleges that, by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of his credit report, the Defendant negligently and willfully violated the Federal Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and New York's credit reporting law. In March 2008, the Plaintiff incurred a loan from Sallie Mae, a government-sponsored loan issuer, to attend, and pay expenses while attending, the Reformed Theological Seminary. The loan was assigned to Navient. In December 2012, Plaintiff filed for personal bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 16, 2013, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging all of the Plaintiff's pre-petition debt. Navient and the Defendant both received notice of the Discharge Order. The Defendant's reporting practice has injured the Plaintiff by decreasing his credit score, and harming his reputation as someone who can manage his finances. At least eight potential creditors have reviewed the Plaintiff's credit report and been wrongly informed that the Plaintiff is currently in default of the Navient Loan. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint. Judge Schofield opines that the Complaint sufficiently states claims for the Defendant's negligent violation of the FCRA and New York's credit reporting law, but fails to state claims for the Defendant's willful violation of these laws, which the Complaint asserts as separate causes of action. The Court finds that (i) the Complaint sufficiently pleads that the Defendant prepared the Plaintiff's credit report with an inaccuracy; (ii) the Complaint sufficiently pleads that the Defendant negligently failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its credit report about the Plaintiff; and (iii) the Complaint sufficiently pleads that the inaccurately reported Navient Loan caused the Plaintiff actual damages. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofiled granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts I and III (the Federal and state negligence claims) survive dismissal. Counts II and IV (the Federal and state willfulness claims) are dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/6ZZlzQ from Leagle.com. Michael Mader, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Reese Shaw, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Austin Connell Smith -- acsmithlawgroup.com -- Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. Experian Information Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kerianne Tobitsch -- ktobitsch@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit Goes to Trial --------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that pre-trial discovery in a class action suit against its subsidiary related to a 401(k) Plan has been completed and the matter has been set for trial. Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") for one of its customers. Plaintiffs in the action filed in 2015 seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and record-keeper. Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes it has meritorious defenses. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no damages. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately US$115 million against all defendants. Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability for this action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a financial services technology company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. FIRST SOLAR: Arizona Suit Plaintiffs Seek Court OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit pending in the Arizona District Court has filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, according to First Solar, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company also disclosed that the settlement is subject to approval by the Arizona District Court on a schedule to be determined by the court. On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme. The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's order denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the Arizona District Court, expert discovery was completed on February 5, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition. Following the denial of the petition, the Arizona District Court ordered that the trial begin on January 7, 2020. On January 5, 2020, First Solar entered into an MOU to settle the Class Action. First Solar agreed to pay a total of US$350 million to settle the claims in the Class Action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, in exchange for mutual releases and a dismissal with prejudice of the complaint upon court approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. As a result of the entry into the MOU, the Company accrued a loss for the settlement in its results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. On February 13, 2020, First Solar entered into a stipulation of settlement with certain named plaintiffs on terms and conditions that are consistent with the MOU. On February 14, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the Arizona District Court on a schedule to be determined by the court. First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar, Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. FLOOR & DECOR: Still Defends Securities Litigation in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The re-captioned case, In re Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending, according to Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2019. On May 20, 2019, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, Taylor v. Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers, directors and stockholders. On August 14, 2019, the Court named a lead plaintiff, and the case was re-captioned In re Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.). The operative complaint alleges certain violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the Company between May 23, 2018 and August 1, 2018 and seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The Company denies the material allegations in this lawsuit, which is in the early stages and has not yet been certified as a class, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Floor & Decor said, "In addition, the Company maintains insurance that may cover any liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been resolved. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from this litigation." Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., formerly FDO Holdings, Inc., incorporated on October 15, 2010, is a retailer of hard surface flooring and related accessories. The Company retails its products such as tile, stone, wood, marble, glass and decoratives. The company is based in Smyrna, Georgia. GEORGETOWN MAC HAIK: Hoover Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Georgetown Mac Haik Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00154 (W.D. Tex., February 10, 2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Georgetown Mac Haik is an automotive dealership under the name "Mac Haik Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram." To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Hoover did not give express consent to receive such texts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Court Narrows Claims in Derrick's Abuse Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned DERRICK, THROUGH AND WITH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER TINA, et al., v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, et al, Civil Action No. 19-1541, (E.D. Pa.). Glen Mills is a non-profit Pennsylvania corporation, registered with the PA-DHS as a private residential rehabilitative institution ("PRRI"), a facility that provides "educational services as part of a total rehabilitative package" required in conjunction with the court placement of a child pursuant to a contractual agreement with a local education agency or intermediate unit. Randy Ireson was executive director of Glen Mills from 2013 til he resigned in February 2019. Plaintiffs Derrick, through and with his next friend and mother Tina, Walter, through and with his next friend and mother Janeva, Thomas, through his next friend and mother Michelle, and Sean, through his next friend and grandmother Andrea, are four minors who were placed at defendant Glen Mills Schools (Glen Mills) after being adjudicated delinquent in the state courts of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that they were subject to physical and mental abuse at the hands of Glen Mills staff and administrators. Plaintiffs' complaint contains eighteen counts alleging the following causes of action: (1) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of their rights to be free from excessive force, to be protected from harm, and to receive adequate food and medical treatment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Counts One, Two, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen); (2) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for deprivation of an education in violation of the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Three); (3) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for deprivation of an education in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Four); (4) for violation of the right to a public education under Pennsylvania law (Count Five); (5) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq. (Counts Six through Eight); (6) under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq. (Count Nine); (7) under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. (Count Ten); (8) for common law negligence (Count Eleven); and (9) for assault and battery (Counts Thirteen, Fifteen, and Seventeen). Plaintiffs seek to represent a General Class consisting of all youths and young adults who were adjudicated delinquent and placed by state or local juvenile justice systems at Glen Mills at any time in the past two years prior to the date of filing of the complaint, or who were placed by state or local juvenile justice systems at Glen Mills at any time and turned 18 within two years of the date of filing of the complaint, or were placed by state or local juvenile justice systems at Glen Mills at any time and have not yet turned 18, as well as the parents of those youths and young adults. Plaintiffs have also described a putative Education Subclass consisting of all class members who, while at Glen Mills, were deprived of an education in accordance with the requirements of the Pennsylvania School Code, a Special Education Subclass of all class members who were identified as children with disabilities as defined by the IDEA, and a Suspected-to-be-Eligible Special Education Subclass of all class members suspected of being students with disabilities who were never identified and/or evaluated at Glen Mills as required by the IDEA. In addition, the complaint avers a Special Education Parent Subclass of all parent class members whose children were placed at Glen Mills and are identified as children with disabilities under the IDEA. Finally, plaintiffs name a Disability Subclass of all class members placed at Glen Mills who have qualifying disabilities as defined under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Now pending before the Court are various motions of defendants challenging plaintiffs' complaint. There are motions to strike plaintiffs' entire complaint under Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, to strike plaintiffs' class action allegations under Rule 12(f) and Rule 23(d)(1)(D). Certain defendants have also moved to dismiss the complaint in part under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, several defendants have moved to sever the claims against them. The Court begins with the motions of Glen Mills, Ireson, and Chester County Intermediate Unit (CCIU) to strike plaintiffs' complaint under Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to defendants, the court should strike the complaint and require plaintiffs to file a complaint that conforms to the requirements of Rules 8 and 10 before defendants are forced to answer plaintiffs' allegations. The Court declines to strike the complaint on those grounds. This is a complex case involving four named plaintiffs who have asserted claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, including several proposed subclasses. The complaint includes eighteen counts and thirteen named defendants. While lengthy, the complaint is well-organized and is not vague, rambling, or incoherent such that is fails to provide notice to defendants of plaintiffs' claims or that it meaningfully impedes defendants' ability to answer. The Court turns next to the motion of defendants Glen Mills and Ireson to strike and dismiss plaintiffs' class action allegations under Rule 23(c)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants first contend that plaintiffs' class allegations under Rule 23(b)(3) must be stricken because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged an ascertainable or definitive class. To date, there has been no discovery and there is no information provided as to the defendants' records and what they may contain. On the current record, the court is unable to conduct the ascertainability analysis. Accordingly, defendants' motion to strike or dismiss on ascertainability grounds is premature. Defendants also contend that the court should strike plaintiffs' allegations regarding their proposed classes seeking damages relief under Rule 23(b)(3) because damages cannot be computed on a class-wide basis and common issues will not predominate over individual issues. The Court opines that without the benefit of at least some limited discovery, it is unable to conduct such analysis and any determination regarding predominance would be premature. The Court then turns now to the motion of Glen Mills and Ireson to strike and dismiss plaintiffs' putative class seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants Glen Mills and Ireson because the detentions of plaintiffs at Glen Mills ended prior to the filing of their complaint and as stated in the complaint the school is now closed. For reasons set forth in an accompanying Memorandum, the Court orders that: (1) The motions of defendants to strike and/or to dismiss, in part, plaintiffs' complaint, and to sever are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (2) The motion of defendants Glen Mills Schools and Randy Ireson to strike and dismiss class action allegations is DENIED without prejudice as to plaintiffs' class action allegations seeking monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) The motion of defendants Glen Mills Schools and Randy Ireson to strike and dismiss class action allegations as to them is GRANTED as to plaintiffs' class action allegations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (5) The motions of defendants to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in Counts One, Two, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen of the complaint are GRANTED to the extent that plaintiffs allege violations of their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (5) The motions of defendants are otherwise DENIED; and (6) The motion of plaintiffs for leave to file a surreply is GRANTED. Full text copies of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order are available at https://tinyurl.com/sre6une and https://tinyurl.com/swlakal from Leagle.com. DERRICK, THROUGH AND WITH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER TINA, WALTER, THROUGH AND WITH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER JANEVA, THOMAS, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER MICHELLE & SEAN, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GRANDMOTHER ANDREA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by FRED T. MAGAZINER - fred.magaziner@dechert.com - DECHERT LLP, MARSHA L. LEVICK , JUVENILE LAW CENTER, 1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107, MAURA I. MCINERNEY - mmcinerney@elc-pa.org - EDUCATION LAW CENTER, MICHAEL H. MCGINLEY - michael.mcginley@dechert.com - DECHERT LLP, NADIA MOZAFFAR , JUVENILE LAW CENTER, 1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107, KRISTINA MOON - kmoon@elc-pa.org - EDUCATION LAW CENTER & MARGARET M. WAKELIN , EDUCATION LAW CENTER, 1730 M Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-4511 GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS & RANDY IRESON, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, Defendants, represented by JOSEPH J. MCHALE- jmchale@stradley.com - STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, BRANDON MICHAEL RILEY -briley@stradley.com - STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG & JOSEPH THOMAS KELLEHER - jkelleher@stradley.com - STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP. TERESA D. MILLER, SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THEODORE DALLAS, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, CATHY UTZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, PEDRO A. RIVERA, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY & PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, represented by HENRY E. HOCKEIMER, Jr. - HOCKEIMERH BALLARDSPAHR.COM - BALLARD SPAHR LLP, KAITLIN M. GURNEY - GURNEYK BALLARDSPAHR.COM - Ballard Spahr LLP, PAUL LANTIERI, III - LANTIERIP BALLARDSPAHR.COM - BALLARD SPAHR et al & ELIZABETH A. ANZALONE , PA DEPT OF EDUCATION, 333 Market St., Pa Department Of Education, Harrisburg, PA, 17101-2210 CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, Defendant, represented by ANDREW E. FAUST , SWEET STEVENS KATZ & WILLIAMS LLP & JASON D. FORTENBERRY , Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP. ANDRE WALKER, Defendant, represented by FRANCIS J. DEASEY , DEASEY, MAHONEY VALENTINI, NORTH, LTD & RUFUS A. JENNINGS , DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. ROBERT TAYLOR, Defendant, represented by GARY M. SAMMS , OBERMAYER REBBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPELL LLP & EDVARD LARS WILSON , OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP. GOLD STANDARD: McNulty Sues Over Collection of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------------- PETE McNULTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLD STANDARD ENTERPRISES, Case No. 2020CH01898 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 14, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to scan their fingerprints at a Metrostaff, Inc. office before they are placed to work at the job sites of third party companies. The Defendant does the collection of biometric data in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and then the Defendant uses that fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric information by private entities, such as the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings the action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. Gold Standard, doing business as Binny's Beverage Depot, provides beverages. The Company offers wine, spirits, beer, and cigars Binny's Beverage Depot operates in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312 201 0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com GOLDSMITH & HULL: Must Clarify Scope of Tavares Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTINE TAVARES, on behalf of herself and similarly situated class members, Plaintiff, v. GOLDSMITH & HULL A.P.C., et al., Defendant, Case No. 19cv1630-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California directed the Parties to file an Amended Notice of Settlement that clarifies the scope of the Parties' settlement. In a notice of settlement dated Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiff informed the Court that a settlement has been reached. Specifically, the Plaintiff states the case has been settled in its entirety and he anticipates filing a Request for Dismissal within 60 days. Magistrate Judge Lopez notes that the case was filed as a putative class action lawsuit. However, from the Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement, the Court is unclear as to whether: (1) the Parties have reached a settlement on the Plaintiff's individual claims and will submit a joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice; or (2) whether the Parties are seeking to file a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. For these reasons, the Magistrate directed the Parties to file an Amended Notice of Settlement that clarifies the scope of the Parties' settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Settlement is available at https://is.gd/XdJQ6x from Leagle.com. Justine Tavares, on behalf of herself and similarly situated class members, Plaintiff, represented by Yana A. Hart -- yana@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Goldsmith & Hull A.P.C., Defendant, represented by Larissa G. Nefulda -- Larissa.Nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Central Veterinary Associates, P.C., Defendant, represented by David Allen Shimkin -- dshimkin@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor. GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defamatory Online Reviews ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Elmas, writing for Smart Company, reports that Google is staring down the barrel of a class-action lawsuit from Australian entrepreneurs over claims the multinational technology giant has published and failed to prevent the spread of defamatory online reviews. It's a situation not unfamiliar to business owners. An anonymous internet user posts a negative, perhaps false, review about a company online, which then becomes a seemingly permanent affixture to their online presence on popular services such as Google Reviews. Without a way to independently verify the authenticity of the reviewer, Aussie businesses have complained for years about their struggles trying to convince, or even contact, Google and other large digital platforms such as Facebook to take down negative and allegedly false reviews about their companies. But now, in a case which one expert says could tip the scales back in favour of SMEs and startups, a Melbourne-based dentist was granted leave by the Federal Court to seek user details pertaining to an allegedly defamatory anonymous review on its platform. The order, first reported by The Guardian, relates to a review posted to Google under the pseudonym "CBsm 23", warning would-be customers of Matthew Kabbabe's Northcote dental clinic to "stay away", claiming they had undergone a botched procedure. Kabbabe, who rejects the claim and alleges the comment is defamatory, has been fighting Google for removal, but has been unsuccessful in convincing the company to take it down. That is, until February, when Kabbabe's lawyer, Mark Stanarevic, says he was made aware the technology giant had taken down the review following the Federal Court order. While US-based Google has yet to provide any user details -- a request it has been asked to fulfil under the Hague Service Convention, an international agreement that enables courts to facilitate the service of legal proceedings on parties in signatory nations -- Stanarevic says his client has no intention on dropping proceedings after the review was taken down. The dentist intends to seek damages from Google for publishing the review, which he claims compromised his ability to market to potential customers online. "Google has failed its duty of care," Stanarevic tells SmartCompany. "They're quite happy to take people's money . . . but when it comes to a bad review, which are clearly malicious . . . they [Google] won't remove it in a lot of cases." Buoyed by the ruling and several days of international media attention on the case, Stanarevic is now preparing a class action on behalf of Australian business owners, claiming Google has not done enough to prevent the spread of defamatory material on its platforms. It comes after the South Australian Supreme Court awarded $750,000 in damages to barrister Gordon Cheng earlier in February over a 2018 review which he claimed included false information. "This is a hidden epidemic," Stanarevic says. "Google and Facebook are monopolists, and they have over-proportionate power," he continues. "This is something businesses have put up with. We've thought there's no capacity for change because of the size of the organisations. "[But] we've got the power to make these changes . . . we're very tolerant people, but when push comes to shove, we will stand up for ourselves." While funding for a potential class action has yet to be secured, Stanarevic says he's already received lots of interest from business owners and is in the process of determining a lead plaintiff over the next "four to six weeks". "We're solidifying funding arrangements, then we will file in the Federal Court," he says. Stanarevic, a defamation lawyer at Matrix Legal who has been working on similar cases for years, says he has a long list of clients who have suffered at the hands of false online reviews. "I hope the outcome is Google pays damages to people affected by this," he says. "I've had countless people who have gone through mental breakdowns because of this." "A tipping point" Angela Dobele, associate professor in marketing at RMIT University, says the case against Google has the potential to become a "tipping point" in the power dynamic between digital platforms such as Google and independent business owners. "This is a tipping point of potentially massive proportions," Dobele tells SmartCompany. "A lot of online reviewers have been using anonymity as a potential shield, it's called the online disinhibition effect," Dobele says. "We unleash exactly what we're feeling, or what we want to say, or even make things up, when there's no potential for repercussions because of our anonymity online." Dobele says the case illustrates a changing tide in regulator attitudes towards online review platforms globally, with a growing realisation that the popularity of online reviews creates a moral hazard that can stymie businesses. "We know [reviews] are incredibly influential," Dobele says. "People make decisions on where to eat, what to order, based entirely on reviews. "We're making decisions on service providers, and we're believing anonymous reviewers." [GN] GRAND CANYON: Ariz. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Foreman -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, issued a Memorandum Decision affirming the Superior Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment in the case captioned JODY FOREMAN, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY INC., et al., Defendants/Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0078, (Ariz. App.). Jody Foreman, Michelle Dudley, Tyrone Blackburn, Bao Tran, and Sharmin Prince (the "Students") enrolled at Grand Canyon University (GCU) between 2010 and 2012 to pursue doctoral degrees. Each of them signed an Agreement to Binding Arbitration and Waiver of Jury Trial (Arbitration Agreement) at enrollment under which they agreed that any dispute between themselves and GCU would be submitted to arbitration. The Students sued GCU in July 2017 raising three Arizona law claims (consumer fraud, intentional or negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing), claiming GCU misled them regarding the time it would take to complete their degree programs. GCU moved to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Agreements, and the superior court ordered the parties to arbitrate. The Students moved for reconsideration, arguing GCU voided the Arbitration Agreements by suing another student, Harland Larson. The court denied the motion without prejudice and stated that it would reconsider its ruling if GCU sued other students. The Students then moved to set aside the order compelling arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), contending new U.S. Department of Education regulations (referred to here as the "2018 Regulations") allowed them to terminate private arbitration and bring their claims in court. The Students also argued that "key information relevant to Plaintiffs' claims [is] in the exclusive control of GCU, who has staunchly resisted Plaintiffs' attempts to conduct discovery in the arbitration proceedings" and noted that they were "approaching the deadlines to exchange documents prior to their one-day arbitration proceedings." GCU asserted that the Students' motion was untimely under Rule 60(c)(1) and that the 2018 Regulations did not apply retroactively. The superior court agreed on both counts, denied the Students' motion, and entered a Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing their claims. The Students timely appealed. On review, the Appellate Court finds that the 2018 Regulations do not apply retroactively. Retroactivity is not favored in the law, and federal "administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result." Elim Church of God v. Harris, 722 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2013). The Appellate Court notes that GCU exercised its contractual right to compel arbitration before the regulations became effective. The 2018 Regulations did not bar GCU from continuing to arbitrate the Students' claims. As a result, the Appellate Court need not and expressly do not reach GCU's contention that the Students' claims are not borrower defense claims under the Borrower Defense Rule. The Appellate Court also finds that GCU's lawsuit against Larson did not invalidate the Students' arbitration agreements. While GCU may have waived its right to arbitrate with Larson by suing him - an issue that is not before the Appellate Court in the appeal - the Students cite no GCU conduct as to them suggesting an intent not to arbitrate their claims. The Students also cite no authority suggesting a party waives its contractual right to arbitrate in one case by not demanding arbitration in an unrelated case. Both sides request their attorney fees incurred in the appeal. At issue in the appeal is whether the Students may proceed in court. Because GCU prevailed on that issue, it therefore may recover reasonable attorney fees upon compliance with ARCAP 21. The Appellate Court do not reach the parties' fee claims under Sec. 12-341.01(A). GCU also may recover its taxable costs as the successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341 upon compliance with ARCAP 21. In sum, the Appellate Court affirms the superior court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 12, 2019 Memorandum Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/se5kom5 from Leagle.com Dessaules Law Group, Phoenix, By Jonathan A. Dessaules - jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com ; Ashley C. Hill - ahill@dessauleslaw.com ; David E. Wood , Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants. Schern Richardson Finter, PLC, Mesa, By Michael A. Schern , Yusra B. Bokhari ,1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 132, Mesa, AZ 85204, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees. Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING: Denied Workers OT Pay, Correa Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Correa, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harbor Distributing, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STOV05329 (Cal. Super. February 10, 2020), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse business-related expenses and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties under the Unfair Business Practices statures of the California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Harbor Distributing is a beer distributor in the Golden State, with operations in Anaheim, Gardena, and Santa Ana.[BN] Correa is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 HCC MARKETING: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCC Marketing, Inc. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HCC MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00857-PBT (E.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Petrese B. Tucker. The lawsuit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. HCC is doing business in the management consulting services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 981-5400 E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com HENRY SCHEIN: Court Dismisses Hatchett Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has dismissed the purported class action suit initiated by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. with prejudice, according to Henry Schein, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and unnamed co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as "all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or after January 29, 2015." The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On February 13, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Underway in 7th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. is still awaiting the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the plaintiffs' appeal from the District Court's dismissal of the class action styled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc. ("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc. ("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor Co-Conspirators. The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to above-competitive levels. The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient, Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant. On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties argued the appeal on September 27, 2019 and are currently awaiting the Seventh Circuit's ruling. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement of NY Securities Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, have agreed to a resolution of the matter, subject to various conditions, including the drafting and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. On February 12, 2018, the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint against Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson Companies, Inc. The FTC alleged, among other things, that defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring, and entering into an agreement, to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. The FTC alleged that defendants conspired in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint sought equitable relief only and does not seek monetary damages. The Company denied the allegation that it conspired to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve dental buying groups. A hearing before an administrative law judge began on October 16, 2018 and the hearing record was closed on February 21, 2019. On October 7, 2019, the administrative law judge issued his Initial Decision, finding in relevant part that the "evidence fails to prove a conspiracy involving Schein," and dismissing the complaint as to Henry Schein. The Initial Decision became the decision of the FTC on November 7, 2019 and is not subject to further appeal. On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class Period, including matters relating to the issues in the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation which Henry Schein settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019 and the FTC action, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, under the same case number. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan) on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class Period. It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even though, "in reality, [Henry Schein] had engaged for years in collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain Schein's margins, profits, and market share." The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017, when the Company announced below-expected financial performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February 13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company's financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or omission. The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that it relied on the Company's August 8, 2017 disclosure to allege loss causation. The court otherwise denied the motion as to Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan. Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of the court's decision. Pursuant to all parties' request, the court temporarily took the motion off the calendar after it was fully briefed. The Company said, "The parties have agreed to a resolution of this matter, subject to various conditions, including the drafting and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. The contemplated settlement, if finally approved, would have no earnings impact to the Company as all payments would be covered by insurance. Henry Schein had previously received a request under 8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust matters." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Still Faces Hollywood Police Officers Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that the Court has appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a putative class action suit initiated by City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System. No further details were provided in the Company's SEC report. On September 30, 2019, City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola (Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM. The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12, 2019. The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were materially false and misleading because they purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice, understated Covetrus's separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly large customer in North America just before the Separation and Merger. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the PSLRA, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on December 23, 2019. The Company said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York HILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Mack Labor Suit Over Meal Period Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE MACK, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v. HILTON MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06469 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay meal period and rest break premiums, and overtime and minimum wages. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants engage in an unlawful business practice of meal period fraud. At the Beverly Hilton location where the Plaintiff worked, employees regularly worked through meal periods, and were then asked by management to falsely report meal periods were taken in compliance with Labor Code requirements. He adds that many of the false meal period entries were written by hand on timesheets, rather than through the normal clocking procedures. The Plaintiff worked as a steward for the Defendant's Beverly Hilton Hotel in a non-exempt position from 2014 through his constructive termination on September 8, 2019. Hilton is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and resorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com HORNELL BREWING: Silva Disputes "All Natural" Labeling ------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Silva, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. and Arizona Beverage Co., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00756, (E.D. N.Y., February 11, 2020), seeks treble damages and/or any other form of monetary relief provided by law for violations of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, restitution, disgorgement or other equitable relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees and such other and further relief. Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute "Arizona All Natural Fruit Snacks." Silva disputes their "All Natural" label saying that said product contains synthetic ingredients. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (917) 444-1960 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com HOTEL.COM LP: Loses Appeal on Summary Judgment in Pine Bluff Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion and Order dismissing an appeal in the appellate case captioned HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE, INC.; TRIP NETWORK, INC. (D/B/A/ CHEAPTICKETS.COM); EXPEDIA, INC.; INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (D/B/A LODGING.COM); ORBITZ, LLC; PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED (N/K/A BOOKING HOLDINGS INC.); PRICELINE.COM, LLC; TRAVELOCITY.COM L.P. (N/K/A TVL LP); TRAVELWEB LLC; AND DISMISSED. SITE59.COM LLC, Appellants, v. PINE BLUFF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION; JEFFERSON CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-18-668, (Ark.). The class-action complaint against the OTCs alleges that the OTCs had failed to collect, or collected and failed to remit, the full amount of gross-receipts taxes imposed by the government entities on hotel accommodations. The circuit court granted class certification, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Following fact discovery, the appellees moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted appellees' motion and denied appellants' motion. The circuit court concluded that the OTCs are liable for the taxes on the full gross receipts they receive from customers. Online travel companies, Hotels.com, L.P., Hotwire, Inc., Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), Expedia, Inc., Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), Orbitz, LLC, priceline.com Incorporated (n/k/a Booking Holdings Inc.), priceline.com LLC, Travelocity.com L.P. (n/k/a TVL LP), Travelweb LLC, and Site59.com LLC (collectively, "the OTCs"), appeal the circuit court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting appellees' motion for partial summary judgment. An order is not final if it adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties unless the circuit court enters a Rule 54(b) certification. Here, the circuit court specifically stated that its order is preliminary and that it was retaining jurisdiction to develop and determine the appropriate relief, and it did not enter a Rule 54(b) certification. Therefore, this is not a final order. Accordingly, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismisses the appeal for lack of a final order. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/twem9a2 from Leagle.com Zeb King, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Marie Madden , Hawks Quindel, S.C., David C. Zoeller , Hawks Quindel, S.C. & Vanessa Ann Kuettel , Hawks Quindel SC, 54 Park Place, #400, Appleton, WI 54914 Trek Travel, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher P. Banaszak - cbanaszak@reinhartlaw.com - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, s.c., Christopher Kevin Schuele - cschuele@reinhartlaw.com - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. & Lynn Marie Stathas - lstathas@reinhartlaw.com - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC. HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Class in Flagg-El Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDRE D. FLAGG-EL, #310 705, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-909-WHA (M.D. Ala.), Judge W. Harold Abritton of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify case as a class action. The case is before the District Court on a Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on Dec. 2, 2019. There being no timely objections filed to the Recommendation, and after a review of the file, Judge Arbritton adopted the Recommendation, and denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify case as a class action. The case is not closed and is referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/3QfgYS from Leagle.com. Andre D. Flagg, also known as, Plaintiff, pro se. HYATT HOTELS: Still Faces Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters -------------------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Hotels Corporation continues to defend itself against class action suits alleging violation of antitrust laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court in Illinois seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuits and will defend its interests vigorously. The Company said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operation, or liquidity." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns, operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. INKSTER, MI: $130K Settlement in Garner Suit Gets Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, CHRISTOPHER GARNER and OLIVIA HEMARATANATORN Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INKSTER, GINA TRIPLETT, McKENNA ASSOCIATES, INC. and JIM WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-13960 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Paul D. Dorman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Class Notice, as amended. The case is a putative class action on behalf of a class of residential property owners who have been fined for failing to have a certificate of occupancy for a rental property and who allege that the Defendants violated certain due process rights related to the administration of the City of Inkster's Building Regulations Code and its adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code. After engaging in formal discovery and lengthy settlement negotiations, the parties have reached a settlement and now before the Court is their Joint Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Class Notice. The parties agree that Defendants City of Inkster, McKenna Associates, Inc. and Jim Wright will establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of $130,000, to be used in significant part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The class counsel will apply for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $43,333.33 (one-third of the Settlement Fund), plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (which fees and expenses will be paid before any other deduction from the Fund). The Defendants will pay named Plaintiff $10,000 from the Settlement Fund for representing the Settlement Class as the Class Representative, and the cost of administering the claims through a third-party claims administrator (Class-Settlement.com) will also be paid from the Settlement Fund. The class counsel will provide the Defendants detailed documentation for any and all costs to be deducted from the Fund prior to filing the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, and the Defendants will have the right to object to any costs they believe are not reasonable, appropriate or otherwise necessary. The class members may make a claim for up to $100 each for each registered residential rental property of that Class Member, and valid claims will be paid at the member's pro-rata share of the settlement fund (minus payments for attorney fees and costs and payment to the Class Representative outlined). Judge Dorman finds that the proposed $10,000 incentive award is excessive because it is at least 100 times greater than what the Plaintiff's fellow class members will recover and thus would make Plaintiff far more than "whole." However, to avoid the named Plaintiff going essentially without compensation for its work on behalf of the class, the Judge will award an incentive payment instead of $1,000. He believes that this amount fairly compensates the Plaintiff for its efforts in the litigation and adequately incentivizes others to serve as class representatives in similar cases. Therefore, upon reviewing the Settlement Agreement and the parties' Joint Motion, and the matter having come before the Court for hearing on Jan. 16, 2020, the Judge finds that the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the parties' dispute. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement of the action, as embodied in the terms of the Settlement Agreement, is preliminarily approved. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated by reference into the Order, with the exception that the "Incentive Award" to the Plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the Agreement is reduced from $10,000 to $1,000. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by stipulation of the parties, and for the purpose of settlement, the Judge certified the following Class, also referred to as "Settlement Class": All persons who paid any registration or inspection fee to the City of Inkster under the City's Rental Dwellings or Rental Units section of its Building Regulations Code from Dec. 7, 2014 through the date of the Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and Settlement Class. The Court appointed (i) Plaintiff, Garner Properties & Management, LLC, as Class representative, and (ii) Aaron D. Cox and Mark K. Wasvary as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Court ordered that the Class Notice will be mailed to the last known address of Class Members as provided by the Defendants via postcard or first-class mail, whichever is more practical. The Settlement Agreement, Class Notice and Claim Form will also be made available on the Class Counsel's website. The Class Notice must be mailed within 28 days of the entry of the Order. The class members must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator within 60 days of the last mailing of the Class Notice. Objections and motions to intervene will be filed in the Court and postmarked and served on the Class Counsel and the Defendants' counsel within 60 days of the last mailing of the Class Notice, or be forever barred. The Class Counsel must file a motion for final approval of class action settlement on May 29, 2020. The Class Counsel will file a motion for approval of attorney's fees and incentive fees to the named Plaintiff on May 29, 2020 and provide the Court with detailed documentation in support of its fee request, and for any and all costs to be deducted from the Settlement Fund corpus. The Parties are directed to incorporate the dates of the Order into the Class Notice. The Fairness Hearing, set forth in the Class Notice, has been set for July 9, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/E9eX7C from Leagle.com. Christopher Garner, Olivia Hemaratanatorn & Garner Properties & Management, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark K. Wasvary -- mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Becker and Wasvary & Aaron D. Cox -- aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com -- Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC. City of Inkster & Gina Triplett, Defendants, represented by David W. Jones, Allen Brothers & Neil B. Pioch, Allen Brothers, PLLC. McKenna Associates, Inc. & Jim Wright, Defendants, represented by Gregory I. Thomas, Thomas, DeGrood, Kevin G. Thomas -- sue4it@thethomases.us -- Thomas DeGrood & Witcroff, Michelle A. Thomas, Thomas, DeGrood & Stephen L. Witenoff, Thomas, DeGrood. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Retirement Sys. Sues over 19% Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JELD-WEN HOLDING, INC.; MARK A. BECK; L. BROOKS MALLARD; GARY S. MICHEL; ONEX CORPORATION; ONEX PARTNERS MANAGER LP; ONEX PARTNERS III LP; ONEX PARTNERS III GP LP; ONEX US PRINCIPALS LP; ONEX PARTNERS III PV LP; ONEX PARTNERS III SELECT LP; ONEX BP CO-INVEST LP; ONEX ADVISOR III LLC; ONEX AMERICAN HOLDINGS II LLC; ONEX BP FINANCE LP, and ONCAP, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00112 (E.D. Va., Feb. 19, 2020) is a securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Jeld-Wen's common stock between January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive. On or around January 27, 2017, Jeld-Wen conducted an initial public offering of the Company's common stock (the "IPO"). Four months after the IPO, on or around May 24, 2017, Jeld Wen conducted a secondary public offering of the Company's common stock (the "First SPO"). Then, six months after the First SPO, on or around November 15, 2017, Jeld-Wen conducted another secondary public offering of the Company's common stock (the "Second SPO"). Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, growth prospects, and competitive positioning. Specifically, the Defendants stated that Jeld-Wen products, including doors, compete against other manufacturers on price, and described the market in which the Company sells its doors as "highly competitive." The Defendants also attributed Jeld-Wen's strong margins and anticipated margin growth to legitimate business factors, such as "making strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level profitability" and increasing its emphasis on "pricing optimization." These and similar statements made by the Defendants during the Class Period were false and misleading because Defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with another door manufacturer to artificially increase or maintain prices of interior molded doors. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. On February 15, 2018, the Company announced that a jury returned a verdict against Jeld-Wen in the Steves Litigation, finding that Jeld-Wen's conduct violated the U.S. antitrust laws. However, the true breadth of Jeld-Wen's misconduct and the financial impact it had on the Company's business continued to be concealed from investors. Moreover, Jeld-Wen continued to assure investors that it participated in a highly competitive market. On August 7, 2018, a veteran industry analyst at J.P. Morgan slashed his estimates for Jeld-Wen's earnings in 2018 and 2019 and lowered his price target for Jeld-Wen's stock, based, in part, on the "ongoing Steves and Sons litigation." In response to the J.P. Morgan report, Jeld-Wen's stock price declined by 10%, from $26.33 per share to $23.71 per share, on high trading volume. On October 5, 2018, the Judge presiding over the Steves Litigation ruled that Jeld-Wen would be required to divest the door skin facility the Company had obtained in connection with its acquisition of CMI. This disclosure, which spurred several analyst downgrades, caused the price of Jeld-Wen shares to decline by nearly 5%. Then, on October 15, 2018, after the market closed, Jeld-Wen announced that the Company expected its third quarter 2018 financial results to include a $76.5 million charge related to the ongoing Steves Litigation. The Company also announced the resignation of its CFO, Brooks Mallard. In response to these disclosures, Jeld-Wen's stock price declined from $21.31 per share to $17.28 per share, on high trading volume, a decline of 19%. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors, as well as wood, vinyl, and aluminum windows. JELD-WEN Holding serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan R. Podolsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandra, VA 22314 Telephone: (571) 366-1702 Facsimile: (703) 647-6009 E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com K&N ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses Penrod Claims Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, John Penrod, Gus Erpenbach, and Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. K&N Engineering, Inc., Defendant, File No. 18-cv-02907 (ECT/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (i) granted Defendant K&N's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs filed the case in federal district court seeking to represent a nationwide class -- or, alternatively, three state-specific classes -- of persons or entities that purchased Defendant K&N Engineering's allegedly defective oil filters. They allege that K&N designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold defective engine-oil filters for use in motorcycles and powersport vehicles (like jet skis and ATVs). They allege that three models of K&N filters -- the KN-138, KN-204, and KN-303 -- share a structural and manufacturing defect whereby they can suddenly separate or fracture causing pressurized and hot engine oil to erupt and spill onto the person, engine, components, tires, and riding surfaces. The three named Plaintiffs are from different states: John Penrod is a Minnesota citizen; Gus Erpenbach is a Missouri citizen; and Juan Welsh is an Oregon citizen. The Plaintiffs allege similar experiences with the KN-204 filter. The Plaintiffs assert only state-law claims and allege there is subject-matter jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Their original complaint was dismissed because it did not allege facts plausibly establishing CAFA's jurisdictional requirement that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. The Plaintiffs have since filed an amended complaint attempting to address the deficiency. The Plaintiffs have added allegations to their amended complaint intended to address the deficiencies. The amended complaint continues not to include an allegation identifying the number of the class members, but it does incorporate additional allegations regarding the number of oil filters implicated by the proposed nationwide class. They estimate sales of the two filters by comparing their interchangeability (that is, the number of vehicles on which these two filters may be installed) with that of the KN-204. From these comparisons, Plaintiffs allege "on information and belief that [K&N] sold more than 500,000 combined units of the KN-138, KN-204, and KN-303 oil filters annually during the class period." The Plaintiffs allege that the "retail value of these units" is at least greater than $21 million. To summarize, the Plaintiffs' theory of subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA hangs on two sets of allegations. With the first, Plaintiffs allege facts plausibly showing that K&N sold during the class period an aggregate number of the three filters at issue in this case that is great enough -- as many as 2.5 million -- to, in turn, suggest plausibly that there are more than 100 members of the proposed class. Their allegation that K&N sold as many as 2.5 million filters is drawn rationally from reasonable sources, and its assertion that these 2.5 million filters were purchased by more than 100 "persons or entities in the United States," 100, is a realistic inference. The Plaintiffs allege next that, multiplying 2.5 million filters by their price of $15.99, "point-of-purchase damages alone" exceed CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold. By "point-of-purchase damages," the Plaintiffs are understood to say that a purchaser and would-be class member incurred damages merely by purchasing one of the three K&N filters at issue. K&N moves to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including that the amended complaint, like the Plaintiffs' original complaint, does not plausibly show that their claims meet CAFA's greater-than $5 million jurisdictional threshold. Judge Tostrud holds that the allegations do not plausibly meet CAFA's greater-than $5 million threshold. Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded lower courts that speculation and conjecture are not injuries cognizable under Article III. But the allegations seem to be both speculative and conjectural. No facts are alleged to support the "3/100ths of 1%" failure rate. If that failure rate were plausible, no facts are pleaded to plausibly suggest that "engine seizure and over $10,000 damages" would result in every one of these instances, or perhaps represent a plausible average of the resulting damages. It is true that Welsh claims to have suffered damages in about that amount. But, at least under the circumstances of the case, it is speculative to allege, based just on Welsh's experience, that every class member who might have experienced the same kind of on-the-road failure would have suffered damages in the same amount. Though pleading on "information and belief" may be appropriate in some situations, it's not accurate to say that is what the Plaintiffs are doing with these allegations. The Plaintiffs will not be given a second opportunity to amend their complaint. That opportunity was not requested. Also, it is difficult to imagine how their CAFA jurisdiction allegations might be amended to plausibly plead jurisdiction. The amended complaint makes clear that they are set on including in the class purchasers whose filters never manifested a defect, and that the inclusion of those purchasers is essential to establishing subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The Plaintiffs have not suggested they might be able to include in a second amended complaint allegations plausibly showing that the value of the claims of purchasers whose filters manifested a defect exceeds $5 million. Based on the foregoing, Judge Tostrud granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and denied as moot Defendant's Motion to Strike. The Judge dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/NIsLWP from Leagle.com. John Penrod, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. -- csmith@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Ling Shan Wang, Esq. -- lwang@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek pLLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf, LLC, pro hac vice. Gus Erpenbach, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice & Ling Shan Wang, Gustafson Gluek pLLC. K&N Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda M. Cialkowski, Esq. -- acialkowski@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Anne Marilyn Kelts, Baker McKenzie LLP, pro hac vice, Leah N. Kippola-Friske, Esq. -- lkippola-friske@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis PA & Mark C. Goodman, Esq. -- mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie, pro hac vice. KAISER FOUNDATION: Can Compel Arbitration in Hunter FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THERESA HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01053-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motions to compel arbitration by Kaiser and USCB, Inc. Hunter commenced the class case against Defendants Kaiser and its debt collector USCB under California and federal law based on the Defendants' debt collection and credit reporting practices. Hunter alleges that the Defendants regularly seek to unlawfully collect alleged balances from Medi-Cal beneficiaries for Medi-Cal covered services and furnish information about those alleged debts to consumer credit reporting agencies. Medi-Cal, California's medical assistance program, pays medical costs for eligible people of limited financial means. A medical service provider that accepts Medi-Cal payments may not directly seek from the beneficiary any balance in excess of the amount approved by Medi-Cal; payment by Medi-Cal to the provider constitutes payment in full. Therefore, there can never be a remaining balance due by a beneficiary for Medi-Cal covered charges. Medi-Cal providers and debt collectors are also prohibited from furnishing information regarding the rendering of any Medi-Cal covered service to any consumer credit reporting agency. In 2012, Hunter was a Medi-Cal beneficiary. She received medical services from Kaiser. Despite that, Kaiser sought to collect from Hunter charges related to her Medi-Cal covered services. It engaged third-party debt collector USCB to assist it. In early 2018, Hunter reviewed copies of her credit files from three national consumer credit reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union, because she was attempting to obtain a mortgage to assist with the financing of a home purchase. At that time, she discovered USCB collection entries showing that she had an unpaid balance to Kaiser in excess of $9,000 for the Medi-Cal covered services from 2012. Hunter disputed the appearance of the USCB entries with the credit reporting agencies and made several unsuccessful attempts to have the entries removed. Experian contacted USCB about Hunter's dispute and USCB contacted Kaiser, who confirmed to USCB and Experian that Hunter was responsible for the charges. Hunter alleges that Kaiser also verified the debt to Trans Union and Equifax. Hunter then filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which contacted the three credit reporting agencies, USCB, and the Office of the California Attorney General ("AG"). USCB responded to the CFPB that it would verify the debt again with Kaiser, that it had not bought Hunter's debt, and that it was acting only as a third-party debt collector contracted by Kaiser. The Public Inquiry Unit of the AG also notified Kaiser of Hunter's charges. On May 30, 2018, Kaiser admitted to the AG that Hunter had active Medi-Cal coverage when she received Kaiser's services in 2012, that it had assigned the charges to collection, that Kaiser (not Hunter) was responsible for the bill, and that it had the power to "recall" the charges. Hunter states that she has been injured because she had lost the opportunity to secure financing for a home purchase and suffered harm to her credit score, harm to her reputation, emotional distress, and time lost disputing Kaiser's charges with USCB and the reporting agencies. She claims that Kaiser regularly attempts to collect money from Medi-Cal beneficiaries for covered services. She brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California common law, and seeks relief on a class-wide basis. Hunter has been a member of Kaiser since 2012. Between 2012 and 2017, she was enrolled in Kaiser's Medi-Cal Managed Care in Contra Costa County. In order to choose Kaiser as a health care provider through Medi-Cal, Hunter was required to fill out, sign, and return a "Medi-Cal Choice Form" to California Department of Health Care Services. The form has been used since at least 2012. Hunter does not dispute that she signed the Medi-Cal Choice Form. In 2018, Hunter enrolled in Kaiser through Covered California. According to Kaiser, individuals may enroll in health benefit plans by accessing Covered California's online enrollment system ("CalHEERS") and may do so directly or utilize the assistance of a certified agent in person or by telephone. Kaiser claims that every Membership Agreement that is provided to or made available to participants following their enrollment includes a binding arbitration provision. Kaiser and USCB move to compel Hunter to arbitrate her claims individually pursuant to an arbitration provision contained in Kaiser's Membership Agreements to which Hunter agreed every year since 2012. Judge Orrick finds that at least for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act period, Hunter had two other alternatives and she does not argue that something about these alternatives (or those available to her during the Medi-Cal period) rendered them illusory. Moreover, by the time Hunter signed up through CalHEERS in 2018, she had been provided an opportunity to review the Membership Agreement containing the same Arbitration Agreement for six years. Accordingly, the amount of procedural unconscionability is low. Hunter needs to demonstrate a high degree of substantive unconscionability in order to prevent enforcement of the arbitration provision against her. Reading the relevant provisions of the Agreement in full, in particular, the "Binding Arbitration" section at pages 65-67, the Court finds that there is no clear provision for class-wide or group arbitration. The plural references relied on by Hunter are mostly general references to how arbitration of individual claims proceed, not commitments to allowing multiple claims to be grouped in one proceeding. Hunter must arbitrate her claims individually. Finally, the Court holds that Hunter points to nothing in the Agreement that would preclude the arbitrator from awarding public injunctive relief. Hence, all of Hunter's claims will be sent to arbitration. For these reasons, Judge Orrick granted in full Kaiser's and USBC's motions to compel arbitration, except that the substantively unconscionable provisions concerning fee shifting and the costs of arbitration as identified are severed and unenforceable. The case will be administratively closed pending completion of the arbitration. Every 180 days from the date of the Order, the counsel will file a joint Status Update informing the Court about the status of the arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/uN43PE from Leagle.com. Theresa Hunter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie R. Tatar -- stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC, James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- P.C., John Soumilas, FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. & Jordan Mark Sartell, FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shannon Z. Petersen -- spetersen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lisa S. Yun -- lyun@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP. USCB, Inc., doing business as USCB America, Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer LLP. LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Meredith McCown, writing for KXII, reports that it's been a year and a half since about 160 people were arrested at a local trailer manufacturing company in Lamar County. They were all suspected of being in the country illegally. Several have been deported, but many are still in the community working and waiting on their court appearances. The federal case for Load Trail in Sumner is still under Federal investigation. Many workers still haven't had their day in court, which could take months or years. A few spoke with News 12 who have work permits and are waiting for their hearings. All are in fear of deportation because of gang violence in their home countries. "It was a surprise that I will perhaps never forget," said former Load Trail employee Rony Mendoza. August 28, 2018 – the sights and sounds still fresh in Mendoza's memory. "I was just thinking about El Salvador," Mendoza said. Through a translator, Mendoza told us he was one of around 160 Load Trail workers arrested by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents. "I felt like I was dreaming, I couldn't believe it. And I thought that I was going to return to my sad reality," Mendoza said. He had to leave his family and his country after the MS-13 gang took over his hometown, which is why he's seeking political asylum. Mendoza worked at Load Trail for eight months before the ICE operation. In 2014, Load Trail paid a nearly $445,000 fine for knowingly hiring and continuing to hire more than 179 unauthorized workers. Then in 2018, ICE conducted the search warrant, video shot days later showed the building nearly empty. Just two months later, former and current employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming they weren't paid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit claims money was deducted from their paychecks for costs of alleged immigration matters, uniforms, tools and other required items. Mendoza's not part of the lawsuit, but says he also didn't get paid for all overtime hours he worked. "In other words, they were more worried about the job than they were the actual employees," Mendoza said. Agustin Coronado would sometimes work an extra 12 to 18 hours a week and wouldn't get paid the full overtime amount. His final court hearing keeps getting delayed. He's worried about going home to violence in Mexico, where his brother was assaulted and stabbed. "My hope is to gain an opportunity to stay here in the United States so I can give my family a better life," Coronado said. Mario Andino says he was forced to work Saturdays after working weekdays, in order to keep his job. He says he got paid overtime on occasion. "Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. But whenever they didn't, we wouldn't complain because we needed the money. We couldn't risk getting fired," Andino said. He left Honduras because he was being harassed by MS-13, who over the years targeted and murdered members of his family. He worked at Load Trail for eight years up until the raid. "I would eat any place I would find and sometimes you would have dust falling all over your food. They didn't even have a place for us to drink water," Andino said. Now he has a work permit and a driver's license. His court date was set for February, when a judge could decide if he'll stay in the U.S. When we reached out to Load Trail for comment on this story, we were referred to their attorney Gene Besen who provided this statement: "Load Trail is conducting it's own thorough and complete internal investigation of the conduct in question." He goes on to say they're cooperating fully with the Department of Justice and may share the results of their investigation with the feds. Load Trail is still doing business as usual. "I'm putting my confidence in God in hoping that everything is favorable in my case," Andino said. The worker's attorney says it will be a year or two until Mendoza's first court appearance, and Coronado's final hearing hasn't been set yet. In the meantime, they've all found other work in the area. Since the class-action lawsuit was filed, several others are trying to join to get their overtime pay from Load Trail. [GN] MACY'S INC: Faces Lee TCPA Suit Over Automated Text Message Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- LYDIA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MACY'S, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-01180-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending automated text message advertisements to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's use of Automatic Telephone Dialing System to transmit text message advertisements to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, including to her 5896 Number and the numbers of all members of the proposed Class, absent the requisite prior "express written consent," constituted violations of the TCPA. Macy's, a retail company, operates 680 department stores throughout the country and, in fiscal year 2018, generated sales of $24.97 billion at its stores and Web sites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 893-70002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com MDL 2672: Bid to Dismiss Iconic Motors Clean Diesel Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Bosch Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 5273. Iconic Motors, No. 3:17-cv-3185-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.). In the case In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. ("Napleton I"), the California District Court denied the Bosch Defendants' motion to dismiss an action against them by a proposed class of Volkswagen-branded dealerships. For the reasons identified in Napleton I, Judge Breyer now also denied the Bosch Defendants' motion to dismiss Iconic Motors, a case against them by a Volkswagen-branded dealership that was not a party in Napleton. The differences that the Bosch Defendants highlight between Napleton and Iconic Motors have not persuaded Judge Breyer that, unlike Napleton, Iconic Motors should be dismissed at the pleading stage. The principal difference between the two cases is that the dealership in Iconic Motors did not open for business until six weeks after the EPA first notified the public of its determination that Volkswagen had manufactured and installed defeat devices in its 2.0-liter TDI cars. Because the Iconic Motors plaintiffs knew about the EPA's notice, and still decided to open a Volkswagen dealership, the Bosch Defendants argue that their losses were self-inflicted and were not caused by the defeat-device scheme. The Bosch Defendants' argument does not take into account that for two years prior to the EPA's first notice of violation, the Iconic Motors plaintiffs spent millions of dollars to construct a dealership that was customized to Volkswagen's branding requirements. The Plaintiffs made this investment without any knowledge of the defeat-device scheme, and they allege that they would not have made the investment had they known about the scheme. Taking these allegations as true, they plausibly support an injury to business or property recoverable under RICO. The Plaintiffs also seek to maintain a civil conspiracy claim against the Bosch Defendants, under Illinois law. For the reasons identified in Napleton I, Judge Breyer holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to plausibly support that the Bosch Defendants were involved in a civil conspiracy, i.e., in the defeat-device scheme. Judge Breyer denied the Bosch Defendants' motion to dismiss. As in Napleton, however, the Bosch Defendants may take discovery and may move for summary judgment if discovery reveals that the Plaintiffs' losses are insufficiently supported by fact or lack a causal nexus to the defeat-device scheme. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/0QyylU from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice. Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, Alexis L. Collins -- alcollins@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, David E. Brodsky -- dbrodsky@cgsh -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Kennedy Park -- jkpark@cgsh -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Larry Work-Dembowski -- lwork-dembowski@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Lewis Jeffrey Liman , Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Sandrock , Sidley Austin, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer, Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. MDL 2672: Kuhn Complaint in VW "Clean Diesel" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 5274. Direct Auto Mgmt., No. 18-cv-0335-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC's motion to dismiss the complaint in Direct Auto, with leave to amend. Direct Auto is a case brought against the Defendants by an individual who planned to, but ultimately did not, open a VW-branded dealership in Westerville, Ohio. The case arises out of Volkswagen's "clean diesel" emissions scandal, which the Plaintiff alleges the Bosch Defendants participated in. Jason Kuhn, the operator of two VW dealerships in the greater Tampa, Florida area, agreed during last decade's recession to operate a third VW dealership in the Tampa area after the operator of that dealership defaulted on his commercial mortgage. Volkswagen did not want Kuhn to permanently run three dealerships in the same metro area, but it agreed that he could run the third Tampa dealership until the economy improved, after which Volkswagen would find him another dealership opportunity in a different market. That agreement ultimately resulted in Volkswagen promising Kuhn that he could open a VW dealership in Westerville, Ohio if he met certain conditions. The conditions, which were listed in an August 2013 letter of intent ("LOI"), included that Kuhn needed to meet specified capitalization requirements, acquire property for the dealership site, and construct a facility on the site that satisfied Volkswagen's design guidelines. Kuhn set out to meet these requirements. He acquired property for the dealership, retained an architect to design the dealership, and worked to secure the necessary permits and approvals from the City of Westerville. In July 2015, the City approved his development plan, and he next set his sights on obtaining Volkswagen's approval. From the complaint, it appears that some additional work by Kuhn's architect was needed before he could submit his plan to Volkswagen. While Kuhn was finalizing his proposal, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the fall of 2015, revealed that Volkswagen had been engaged in a large-scale and long-running defeat-device scheme. The disclosure was front-page news and threatened to damage the VW brand. Volkswagen represented to its dealers that it would financially assist them in the aftermath of the disclosure, and based at least in part on that representation, Kuhn decided to press forward with his plans to open a VW dealership in Westerville. Kuhn's plans hit a significant snag in February 2016. By then he had sent his final proposal for the dealership to Volkswagen. Upon reviewing the proposal, Volkswagen rejected it and requested that Kuhn and his architect "completely redo" it. Given the added costs that would be required to redo the proposal, as well as a diminished outlook for Volkswagen and its brand, Kuhn decided not to continue trying to fulfill the Westerville LOI. After abandoning the Westerville LOI, Kuhn filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen, alleging that the company, by concealing its defeat-device scheme, knowingly misled him about the value of the Westerville LOI. He also claimed that Volkswagen reneged on its promise to compensate him and other dealers for their losses from the emissions scandal. He included a RICO claim in his complaint, for which he named Robert Bosch LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH as codefendants with Volkswagen. He alleged that the RICO defendants worked together to develop the defeat device that was at the center of the emissions scandal, and that by doing so they participated in a racketeering enterprise that caused him to sustain financial losses. Kuhn ultimately settled with Volkswagen, leaving only his RICO claim against the Bosch defendants. In moving to dismiss Kuhn's complaint, the Bosch Defendants contend that Kuhn's RICO claim cannot go forward because he has not satisfied RICO's standing requirements. Those requirements and their application follow. Judge Breyer finds that Kuhn's allegations are insufficient to support a plausible inference that these losses were "by reason of" the defendants' racketeering activity (i.e., by reason of the defeat-device scheme). First, the drop in the LOI's value was caused by the scheme's discovery, not by the scheme itself. Second, the allegations also do not plausibly support that the defeat-device scheme caused Kuhn to lose the money he spent trying to fulfill the Westerville LOI. As currently pled, Judge Breyer finds that the decline in the value of the Westerville LOI and Kuhn's out of pocket expenditures to fulfill the LOI do not constitute losses that were "by reason" of the Defendants' racketeering activity. Kuhn therefore lacks statutory standing to pursue his RICO claim. As the RICO claim is the only claim outstanding, and Kuhn lacks standing to maintain it, Judge Bryer granted the Bosch Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. It is not a certainty that Kuhn cannot allege facts sufficient to address the identified deficiencies, so the Judge granted him leave to amend his complaint. His amended complaint, if any, must be filed within 45 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/BDWXMw from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer, Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. NORTH HEMPSTEAD, NY: Gramercy Class Suit Moved to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Gramercy Group, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Similarly Situated Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries in Connection with the Improvement of Various Lands and Premises v. Town of North Hempstead, et al., Case No. 8-19-08078-las, was moved from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Feb 14, 2020. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-mc-00395-GRB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown. Gramercy Group provides environmental remediation and demolition solutions. The Town of North Hempstead is one of three towns in Nassau County, New York.[BN] Plaintiff Gramercy Group, Inc., is represented by: Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq. OTTERBOURG, STEINDLER, HOUSTON & ROSEN 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 905-3677 Facsimile: (212) 368-7121 E-mail: mcyganowski@otterbourg.com - and - Michael F. McKenna, Esq. COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. One Newark Center, 21st Floor Newark, NJ 01102 Telephone: (201) 934-9800 Facsimile: (201) 934-8681 E-mail: mmckenna@lewismckenna.com - and - Stan Yuon Yang, Esq. OFFICE OF US TRUSTEE 560 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722 Telephone: (631) 715-7800 Facsimile: (631) 715-7777 E-mail: stan.y.yang@usdoj.gov Defendant Town of North Hempstead is represented by: Theresa Ann Driscoll, Esq. MORITT HOCK & HAMROFF LLP 400 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 873-2000 Facsimile: (516) 873-2010 E-mail: tdriscoll@moritthock.com OASIS LEGAL: District Court Vacates Stay in Davis Usury Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, issued an Order vacating the Stay in the case captioned LIZZIE DAVIS; PAMELA DAVIS; DENNIS GREEN; JOHNNY MOODY; JOHN SUBER; and SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC; and OASIS LEGAL FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV 317-022, (S.D. Ga.). Under the class action complaint, Plaintiffs are putative class members who entered into loan agreements with the Oasis Defendants. Plaintiffs claim that their loan agreements violate state usury laws. The case was removed to the Georgia District Court on April 28, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to strike the class allegations of the complaint on May 5, 2017. Defendants Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC and Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC also filed a separate motion to dismiss, arguing that they are not parties to the transactions at issue in the case. The Court has not ruled on this latter motion because the case has been stayed pending appeal. On November 15, 2017, the Georgia District Court denied the Oasis Defendants' motion to dismiss upon its finding and conclusion that the forum selection clause and the class action waiver clause in the loan agreements are void as against Georgia public policy. The Oasis Defendants appealed this decision. On August 28, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's Order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike the class allegations. Accordingly, it is ordered that the mandate of the Eleventh Circuit is made the judgment of the District Court. In accordance therewith, the District Court vacates the stay of the case. The parties are directed to confer and submit a Rule 26(f) report without delay. The Court will consider and resolve the motion to dismiss filed by Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC and Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC in due course. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx22tyjw from Leagle.com Lizzie Davis, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Dennis Green, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Johnny Moody, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, John Suber, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Shirley Williams, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated & Pamela Davis, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy S. McKenzie , Karsman, McKenzie & Hart, 21 W Park Ave, Savannah, GA 31401 & Robert Bartley Turner , Savage & Turner, PC,102 East Liberty Street, 8th Floor, Savannah, GA 31401. Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC, Oasis Legal Finance, LLC & Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by Abby A. Vineyard , Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, 3475 Piedmont Road N.E., Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30305-3327, Christine Elizabeth Skoczylas , Barnes & Thornburg LLP, 3475 Piedmont Road N.E., Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30305-332, 7pro hac vice & William M. McErlean , Barnes & Thornburg LLP, 3475 Piedmont Road N.E., Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30305-3327pro hac vice. PHARM-SAVE INC: Court Dismisses First Amended Savidge Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREA K. SAVIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHARM-SAVE, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-186-CHB (W.D. Ky.), Judge Claria Horn Boom of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted Defendant Pharm-Save and Neil Medical's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs Savidge and Lynch were employees of Pharm-Save from 2013 to 2015 and 2013 to 2014, respectively. On March 3, 2016, after their employments with Pharm-Save had ended, a data breach occurred through which an outside individual or group obtained copies of the W-2 forms which Pharm-Save sent to its employees and the IRS which would have included the employees' social security numbers, addresses and their 2015 salary information. This data breach occurred when Pharm-Save fell victim to a phishing scheme perpetrated by cybercriminals. According to the Complaint, one or more Pharm-Save employees released the Plaintiffs' sensitive and personal information contained in their W-2s to cybercriminals posing as company executives. In letters dated March 24, 2016, Pharm-Save notified all affected employees, including Savidge and Lynch, of the incident. It explained the security breach and told employees that it is possible that the criminal(s) may have filed or may try to file fraudulent tax refunds in the names of their employees. The Plaintiffs sued Pharm-Save and Neil Medical in state court for the release of their personally identifiable information ("PII"). The Defendants timely removed the action to the District Court and simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court granted in part and denied in part that motion, leaving only two live claims: negligence and breach of implied contract. It also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not contain new factual allegations, but it advances four new legal theories centered on Pharm-Save's alleged mishandling of Plaintiffs' PII: (1) trade secret misappropriation, (2) conversion, (3) trespass to chattels, and (4) bailment. Pharm-Save moved to dismiss all newly asserted counts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Judge Boom finds that the Plaintiffs' bare allegation that Defendant misappropriated their PII by exposing it to cybercriminals -- who posed as company executives -- does not reach the plausibility benchmark. In the case, two former employees are suing their former employer for "misappropriation" of their personal information, which Pharm-Save allegedly exposed to cybercriminals who posed as company executives. These cybercriminals fraudulently induced Pharm-Save to disclose the information and led the Defendant to believe that the PII was only circulating internally. A misappropriation claim, however, is based on the improper use of a trade secret to gain an advantage over the plaintiff. Even assuming that the Plaintiffs' PII is a trade secret, the Plaintiffs do not allege how the Defendant's disclosure of their PII -- ostensibly to Pharm-Save's own company executives -- constituted "misappropriation" within the competitor-centric framework of the KUTSA. Next, Judge Boom finds that the Plaintiffs do not indicate how Pharm-Save exercised "dominion" over their PII to Pharm-Save's own use and beneficial enjoyment. In fact, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Pharm-Save was the victim of a cybercrime -- making it difficult to imagine how the repercussions of a phishing scheme benefitted Defendant in any way. The Plaintiffs' allegations fail to meet the pleading standard. Their Amended Complaint merely recites the Atmos elements of conversion without developing any factual assertions that would "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Specifically, they allege that they had ownership rights to their PII, that Pharm-Save engaged in the wrongful act of disposing of the PII by transmitting it to cyber criminals, and that they were damaged. These bare assertions that Pharm-Save converted the Plaintiffs' PII are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' trespass allegations are insufficient because the acquisition of their PII involved no physical invasion or confiscation of actual property. They do not allege interference with their own computers or devices. Nor could they make such allegations because any interference occurred with Pharm-Save's computer systems that stored their PII. In sum, the Plaintiffs' threadbare recitation of the trespass elements do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8, and this claim must be dismissed. Finally, Judge Boom finds that neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant could have "exclusive" control over the Plaintiffs' PII. Because the Plaintiffs retained the full knowledge of their PII's contents, they experienced no meaningful loss by transmitting their information to Pharm-Save. If such an unorthodox legal theory for their bailment claim exists, the Plaintiffs have failed to present it, and the Judge finds nothing to support it. For the reasons she stated, Judge Boom finds that each of the Plaintiffs' newly asserted legal theories fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, Judge Boom grants Pharm-Save's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/oVpEVw from Leagle.com. Andrea K. Savidge, individually, and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons & Beth A. Lynch, individually, and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter J. Jannace -- peter.jannace@gmail.com -- & Teddy B. Gordon -- tbearaty@aol.com. Pharm-Save, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron N. Miller -- bmiller@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Joseph A. Wright -- jwright@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Michael J. Bender -- mbender@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC & Mitchel Terence Denham -- mitchel.denham@ag.ky.gov -- Kentucky Attorney General. PRIMA NOCE PACKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABIGAIL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMA NOCE PACKING, INC.; PRIMAVERA MARKETING, INC.; PRIMA FRUTTA PACKING; A. SAMBADO & SON, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-2020-1822 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 5, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Prima Noce Packing, Inc. produces and sells walnuts from growers located in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq. Sydney A. Adams, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC. 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com tagore@maternlawgroup.com sadams@maternlawgroup.com PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Muller Hits Illegal SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------------ Carrie Muller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01403 (D. N.J., February 11, 2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Public Service Enterprise is a publicly traded diversified energy company. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Muller did not give express consent to receive such texts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com RAYTHEON CO: Mass. District Denies Bid to Dismiss Cruz ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHNNY CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, KELLY B. LAPIN, in her capacity as Plan Administrator, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-11425-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Raytheon's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Cruz commenced the putative class action against Raytheon, Kelly B. Lapin, and John/Jane Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Cruz argues that Raytheon uses unreasonable "conversion factors" to calculate pension benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that he is receiving $57 less per month than he should because Raytheon's "conversion factor" is based upon an unreasonable interest (or discount) rate and mortality table. Cruz worked for Raytheon for 32 years until his retirement in 2015 at age 55. He participates in the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Hourly Employees ("Hourly Plan") and receives a 50% joint and survivor annuity. Cruz's wife is the survivor beneficiary of the annuity. Under this joint and survivor annuity, Cruz receives $1,021.33 per month. Raytheon moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Though Cruz has challenged five different pension plans operated by Raytheon, both parties agree that the motion to dismiss analysis should focus solely on whether Cruz has sufficiently pled that Raytheon used unlawful actuarial assumptions to calculate Cruz's pension benefits. Judge Saris holds that Cruz plausibly alleges that the Hourly Plan violates ERISA by relying upon unreasonable actuarial assumptions. Cruz has alleged that the Hourly Plan's conversion factor produces an unreasonable result, based on its divergence from a result produced by actuarial assumptions that Raytheon itself regards as reasonable. This complex actuarial claim cannot be assessed without a more developed record, in which Raytheon discloses the actuarial assumptions it relies upon. Raytheon cannot hide the ball and then complain that the Plaintiff is unable to find it. In the alternative, Raytheon argues that the complaint fails to state a claim because ERISA does not require pension plans to update their actuarial assumptions periodically. However, assessing the "reasonableness" of actuarial assumptions could plausibly include consideration of the age of those assumptions. Raytheon has not cited case law to the contrary, so its argument must be retired. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Saris denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/sowbd1 from Leagle.com. Johnny Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Needham -- dneedham@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, Mark G. Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Alexandra L. Serber, Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, pro hac vice & Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, pro hac vice. Raytheon Company & Kelly B. Lappin, in her capacity as Plan Administrator, Defendants, represented by Christian J. Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Ravi Doshi -- rdoshi@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Newman -- rnewman@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter, LLP & Kline Moore, Goodwin Procter LLP. REAGAN POWER: Underpays Welders, Willis Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REAGAN POWER & COMPRESSION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00409 (E.D. La., Feb. 5, 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 Willis was employed by the Defendant as welder. Reagan Power & Compression, LLC was founded in 1946 in Natchez, MS, and originally named "Reagan Tool Company". Beginning as a machine shop servicing oilfield components such as drill pipe, draw works, and steam boilers, the business soon expanded to become the exclusive dealer for Waukesha engines in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjoseph@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard 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 REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal from Nixed Securities Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- ReWalk Robotics Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the complaint in a Massachusetts securities class action remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and has been fully briefed. Oral arguments were scheduled for March 2, 2020. The action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, was partially dismissed on August 23, 2018. In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in the IPO registration statement. The District Court did not address the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because, as a result of the dismissal of the claims under the Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked standing to pursue those claims. Because the action in the District Court was styled as a class action, the District Court permitted the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum concerning standing or a motion to appoint a substitute or supplemental plaintiff. On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add a new plaintiff that purportedly has standing to pursue Exchange Act claims, and the Company opposed the motion to amend on September 24, 2018. On May 16, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend and the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and oral arguments have been scheduled for March 2, 2020. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops, and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am Illit, Israel. SALDUTTI LLC: Consumer Bank's Bid to Dismiss Rankin Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Customers Bank's Motion to Dismiss the case, DAVID RANKIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SALDUTTI, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-1508 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs David and Dina Rankin commenced the lawsuit against Defendants Saldutti, William F. Saldutti, III, Robert L. Saldutti, and Defendant Customers Bank. On April 9, 2019, they initiated the case by filing a Class Action Complaint against the Defendants containing two Counts. Count I is a claim against the Saldutti Defendants pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); Count II is a claim against Customers Bank pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). The Plaintiffs allege that they took out a personal loan with Customers Bank for $10,000 in 2006. The balance was paid down to approximately $2,700 before they defaulted on the loan. The Saldutti Defendants were engaged by Customers Bank to collect on the loan and, on Nov. 15, 2011, obtained a judgment against them for approximately $4,900 for the consumer debt owed to Customers Bank. The Plaintiffs entered into a repayment plan through the Saldutti Defendants' office, but again missed payments in 2017. In May 2018, Plaintiff David Rankin contacted Defendant William Saldutti III to inquire about rehabilitation and reconciliation of the payment plan. Following this inquiry, the Saldutti Defendants sent the Plaintiffs an e-mail on June 22, 2018 requesting their complete and unredacted tax returns and requiring the completion of an attached "comprehensive 'financial form.'" The Plaintiffs assert that this financial form was furnished by the Saldutti Defendants, and prepared and issued by Customers Bank on Customers Bank's letterhead containing Customers Bank's logo. The form, signed by them, provides that the information contained in the statement is provided to induce them to extend or to continue the extension of credit to the undersigned or to others upon the guarantee of the undersigned. As related to Customers Bank, the Plaintiffs contend that the form is actually a credit extension application form of Customers Bank, consequently triggering TILA disclosure requirements. The Plaintiffs also assert that the only 'credit' at issue, as reasonably understood by them, was in the lowering of the monthly payments of the original debt owed to the Bank. Customers Bank did not provide TILA-required disclosures before or after they received the financial form. The Plaintiffs' sole claim against Customers Bank is predicated on Customers Bank's failure to provide TILA disclosures before or after they were given and completed the financial form. On June 24, 2019, Customers Bank filed the present Motion to Dismiss. On July 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to Customers Bank's Motion to Dismiss, and on July 29, 2019, Customers Bank filed a Reply in Support of its Motion. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion. Customers Bank submits the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim. First, Customers Bank contends that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they have not identified any concrete, particularized injury resulting from the alleged non-disclosure, and instead assert a bare procedural violation insufficient to confer standing. Second, Customers Bank contends that the Plaintiffs cannot state a viable claim under the TILA because they did not allege that (1) Customers extended or offered credit at the time of the alleged events; (2) the Plaintiffs are consumers as defined by the TILA; (3) Customers Bank is a creditor as defined by the TILA; and (4) a credit transaction occurred as defined by the TILA. As a result, Customers Bank requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' cause of action against them with prejudice. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not simply allege a bare procedural violation. The Complaint clearly states that they and the Class members have been injured and suffered monetary losses because of the Bank's violations of TILA. Their alleged monetary injury is not merely procedural in nature, but is an allegation of a concrete, economic injury. As such, the Plaintiffs have alleged a particularized and concrete injury and have standing to bring the suit. Next, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs completed and signed this form as the "undersigned," believing they would be considered for lower monthly payments on their original loan. The Complaint alleges that while the Plaintiffs thought they were completing the form to lower their monthly payments on their original debt, the form was actually a credit extension application that requires TILA disclosures. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the TILA. First, the Complaint fails to specify the TILA disclosures, section, or subsection in the Plaintiff's allegations against Customers Bank. Second, the Plaintiffs' completion of the financial form in their effort to negotiate a payment plan on their existing debt did not constitute an extension of credit that required TILA disclosures. Third, even if the financial form constituted an extension of credit, that extension was not "consummated" under the TILA. Fourth, the Plaintiffs completed the financial form as part of negotiations for a payment plan on a judgment. Thus, Customers Bank is not liable to Plaintiffs on the TILA claim as a matter of law. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/HAJyq5 from Leagle.com. DAVID RANKIN & DINA RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC, KEVIN LAUKAITIS -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC & PREDRAG FILIPOVIC -- PFesq@ifight4justice.com -- I FIGHT 4 JUSTICE LAW OFFICE OF PREDRAG FILIPOVIC. SALDUTTI, LLC, also known as SALDUTTI LAW, LLC also known as SALDUTTI LAW GROUP, WILLIAM F. SALDUTTI, III & ROBERT L. SALDUTTI, Defendants, represented by STEPHEN KEIM -- sgkeim@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY & GREGORY W. FOX, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. CUSTOMERS BANK, Defendant, represented by JOE NGUYEN -- jnguyen@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP & SPENCER R. SHORT -- sshort@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP. SECURE LENDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hand Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM K. HAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURE LENDING INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00607 (E.D. La., Feb. 19, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. Secured Lending Solutions Inc. provides mortgage banking solutions. The Company offers real estate loan and lending services. Secured Lending Solutions operates in Glen Rock, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Sterbcow, Esq. Beth E. Abramson, Esq. Jessica L. Ibert, Esq. Ian F. Taylor, Esq. LEWIS KULLMAN STERBCOW & ABRAMSON, LLC 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2615 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 588-1500 Facsimile: (504) 588-1514 E-mail: sterbcow@lksalaw.com itaylor@lksalaw.com babramson@lksalaw.com jibert@lksalaw.com SECURITY SERVICE: Duffy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- James Duffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Grubbs Automotive MA, LLC and George R. Grubbs III, Defendants, Case 20-0161 (Mass. Sup., November 16, 2017), seek unpaid overtime wages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation under the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Grubbs is a company operating a car dealership and selling vehicles in Massachusetts where Duffy worked as a salesperson. Duffy claims to have worked more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks but was not paid at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Office: (617) 338-9400 Email: rm@mass-legal.com SEED CONSULTING: James Sues Over False Credit Advice ---------------------------------------------------- Catherine James, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Seed Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00371, (D. Md., February 11, 2020), seeks injunctive relief for violations of the Maryland Credit Services Business Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Seed Consulting operates as "Seed Capital," a business engaged in the business of assisting consumers in obtaining extensions of credit in the State of Maryland. James entered into a contract with Seed Capital to obtain funding for a for-profit real estate training program which resulted in more than multiple applications for personal credit after Seed Capital allegedly provided James with false credit advice. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq. HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC 16 E Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 777-5396 Fax: (410) 777-8237 Email: kat@lawhyland.com SET & SERVICE: Furman Suit Moved From Calif. Super. to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Set and Service Resources, LLC, removed the case captioned as MELISSA FURMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SET AND SERVICE RESOURCES, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive (Filed Jan. 10, 2020), from the California Superior Court in and for the County of Tehama to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Feb. 14, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00166 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages, to pay minimum wages, to pay all regular wages, and to provide rest breaks and meal periods. Set & Service provides employment services. The Company offers temporary labor and permanent placement, interviewing, background check, drug screening, and workers' compensation services.[BN] Defendant Set and Service Resources, LLC is represented by: Nathan W. Austin, Esq. Ashley L. Hoffman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 E-mail: Nathan.Austin@jacksonlewis.com Ashley.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com SHOP Q INC: Faces Cooks ADA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- RICHARD COOKS, individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOP Q, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01230-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. Shop Q, Inc. sells woman's clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F Benedict, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT 7710 Hazard Center Drive Suite E104 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (760) 822-1911 Facsimile: (760) 452-7562 E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com SOUTHERN CO: Appeal in Franchise Fees Suit v. Georgia Unit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Southern Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Georgia Power Company's appeal from the Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order in a putative class action suit remains pending in the Georgia Court of Appeals. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state tort law claims. In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in 2017. In June 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Following a motion by Georgia Power, on February 13, 2019, the Superior Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling to address certain terms the court previously held were ambiguous as used in the Georgia PSC's orders. The order entered by the Superior Court of Fulton County also conditionally certified the proposed class. In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia PSC's orders. On October 23, 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found and concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule. On March 6, 2019, Georgia Power filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding the Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order. The Company said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown whether conditional class certification will be upheld and the ultimate composition of any class and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any municipalities." The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. SOUTHERN CO: Bid to Nix Turnage Suit vs. Mississippi Unit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mississippi Power Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Ray C. Turnage is still pending, according to The Southern Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and three members of the Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into service. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were improper. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up to US$23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2019. The amended complaint included four additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Southern Company said, "An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact on Mississippi Power's financial statements." The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. SOUTHERN CO: Monroe County ERS Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the putative securities class action suit initiated by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System against The Southern Company, among other defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has entered an order staying all deadlines in the case pending mediation. The stay automatically expires on March 31, 2020. The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in January 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and attorneys' fees. In 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that provided additional detail about their claims, increased the purported class period by one day, and added certain other former Mississippi Power officers as defendants. Also in 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to which the plaintiffs filed an opposition. In March 2018, the court issued an order granting, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed certain claims against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power and dismissed the allegations related to a number of the statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading. In April 2018, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in the lawsuit. In August 2018, the court denied the motion for reconsideration and denied a motion to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. On August 22, 2019, the court certified the plaintiffs' proposed class. On September 5, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On December 19, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order staying all deadlines in the case pending mediation. The stay automatically expires on March 31, 2020. The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. STANFORD INT'L: 5th Cir. Upholds Bar Orders From Texas District Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the Texas District Court's Jurisdiction and Discretion to Enter Bar Orders in the case captioned ANTONIO JUBIS ZACARIAS; ROBERTO BARBAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LIMITED, Defendant. BARRY L. RUPERT; CAROL RUPERT; MICHAEL RISHMAGUE; LIONEL ALESSIO; DAN AULI PANOS, et al Movants-Appellants, v. OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS' COMMITTEE; MANUEL CANABAL; WILLIS, LIMITED; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED, Interested Parties-Appellees, WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; WILLIS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; AMY S. BARANOUCKY; BOWEN MICLETTE; BRITT, INCORPORATED; RALPH S. JANVEY; SAMUEL TROICE, Appellees, v. EDNA ABLE, Interested Party-Appellant, CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11114 THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS' COMMITTEE; SAMUEL TROICE, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; MANUEL CANABAL, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CARLOS TISMINESKY; ROBERTO BARBAR; ANA LORENA NUILA DE GADALA-MARIA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED; WILLIS LIMITED; WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; WILLIS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; AMY S. BARANOUCKY; BOWEN, MICLETTE; BRITT, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, v. BARRY L. RUPERT; CAROL RUPERT; MICHAEL RISHMAGUE; LIONEL ALESSIO; DAN AULI PANOS, EDNA ABLE; et al, Appellants, v. RALPH S. JANVEY, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for Stanford Receivership Estate, Appellee, CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11122 EDNA ABLE; ROBERT C. AHDERS; RODRIGO RIVERA ALCAYAGA; DAVID ARNTSEN; CARLIE ARNTSEN; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED; WGH HOLDINGS, LTD.; WILLIS LTD., Defendants-Appellees, CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11127 ANTONIO JUBIS ZACARIAS, Individual; ANA VIRGINIA GONZALEZ DE JUBIS, Individual; GLADIS JUBIS DE ACUNA, Individual; ERIC ACUNA JUBIS, Individual; TULIO CAPRILES, Individual; JORGE CASAUS HERRERO, Individual; MARTHA BLANCHET, Individual; LUIS ZABALA, Individual; EMMA LOPEZ, Individual; ELBA DE LA TORRE, Individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS LIMITED; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11128 ANA LORENA NUILA DE GADALA-MARIA, Individual; JOSE NUILA, Individual; JOSE NUILA FUENTES, Individual; GLADYS BONILLA DE NUILA, Individual; GLADYS ELENA NUILA DE PONCE, Individual, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS LIMITED, a United Kingdom Company; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED, a Colorado Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11129 CARLOS TISMINESKY, Individual; RACHEL TISMINESKY, Individual; FELIPE BRONSTEIN, Individual; ETHEL TISMINESKY DE BRONSTEIN, Individual; GUY GERBY, Individual; VICENTE JUARISTI SUAREZ, Individual; AMPARO MATEO LONGARELA, Individual; SALVADOR GAVILAN, Individual; LARRY FRANK, Individual; MERCEDES BITTAN, Individual; OMAIRA BERMUDEZ, Individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS LIMITED; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-11073 CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-11114, 17-11122, 17-11127, 17-11128, 17-11129 (5th Cir.). The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the Northern District of Texas against Robert Allen Stanford, the Stanford International Bank, and other Stanford entities, alleging a massive, ongoing fraud. Invoking the Texas court's long-held statutory authority, the Commission requested that the Texas district court take custody of the troubled Stanford entities and delegate control to an appointed officer of the court. The district court did so, appointing Ralph Janvey as receiver to "collect" and "marshal" assets owed to the Stanford entities, and to distribute these funds to their defrauded investors to honor commitments to the extent the receiver's efforts recouped monies from the Ponzi-scheme players. The receiver has pursued persons and entities allegedly complicit in Stanford's Ponzi scheme. Through settlements with these third parties, the receiver retrieved investment losses, which it then distributed pro rata to investors through a court-supervised distribution process. Four years into this ongoing process, the receiver sued two insurance brokers, not upon contracts of insurance, but for participating in the Ponzi scheme. As with the receiver's other suits, monies it recovered from the lawsuit would be distributed by the receiver pro rata to investor claimants. After years of litigation, the two companies, negotiating for complete peace, agreed to settle conditioned on bar orders enjoining further Ponzi-scheme suits filed against them. The district court entered the bar orders and approved the settlements. Certain objectors filed an appeal challenging the district court's jurisdiction and discretion to enter the bar orders. The Fifth Circuit opines that the core difficulty with Plaintiffs-Objectors' efforts to go it alone is that it would frustrate the central purposes of the receivership and confound the SEC's mission to achieve maximum recovery from the malefactors for distribution pro rata to all investors. For reasons stated in its order, the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's approval of the BMB and Willis settlements and its entry of the corresponding bar orders enjoining the Plaintiffs-Objectors' third-party investor claims. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's December 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx44xdae from Leagle.com. Randall Alan Pulman , Leslie Sara Hyman, Esq. - lhyman@pulmanlaw.com - , Matthew John McGowan , Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen, Benson & Jones, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Appellants BARRY L. RUPERT, CAROL RUPERT, MICHAEL RISHMAGUE, LIONEL ALESSIO, DAN AULI PANGS. Kevin M. Sadler , Baker Botts, L.L.P., Palo Alto, CA, Stephanie Frederique Cagniart , Attorney, Scott Daniel Powers , Baker Botts, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Appellee RALPH S. JANVEY. Peter Michael Jung , Clark Hill Strasburger, Dallas, TX, Judith R. Blakeway , Clark Hill Strasburger, San Antonio, TX, Edward C. Snyder , Castillo Snyder, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Appellees SAMUEL TROICE, MANUEL CANABAL, OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE. Christopher John King, Esq. - cking@homerbonner.com - Counsel, Homer Bonner Jacobs, Miami, FL, Curtis Bradley Miner, Esq. - curt@colson.com , Maureen Elizabeth Lefebvre, Esq. , Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant ANTONIO JUBIS ZACARIAS. Christopher John King, Esq. , Counsel, Luis Eduardo Delgado , Homer Bonner Jacobs, Miami, FL, Curtis Bradley Miner, Esq. , Maureen Elizabeth Lefebvre, Esq. , Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERTO BARBAR. Jonathan D. Polkes , Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Appellees WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED, WILLIS, LIMITED, WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, WILLIS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED. Jessica Lynn Crutcher , Mayer Brown, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Mark D. Manela, Esq. , Manela Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Appellee AMY S. BARANOUCKY. Bradley Wayne Foster, Esq. , Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Appellee BOWEN, MICLETTE & BRITT, INCORPORATED. William Shawn Staples , Stanley Law, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellant EDNA ABLE. STS MEDIA: 500MB Rollover Data Cellular Plan Deceptive, Ling Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DICK LING, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. STS MEDIA, INC. D/ B/A UNREAL MOBILE; DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 4:20-cv-01173-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of falsely advertising that it will provide services that it has no intention to provide and to redress for a nationwide class of consumers, who were advertised certain terms and conditions with their cellular plan that were false, in violation of Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that it will provide certain terms and conditions, specifically, rollover data up to 500MB per month for no additional charge, when in fact, they do charge an additional $3.99/month for rollover plans. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated received these kind of plans from the Defendant and only after purchasing the plans were charged the additional $3.99/month for rollover data. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's misrepresentations caused him and the class to purchase these plans, which they would not have taken absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing, the Defendant has violated California consumer protection statutes. The Defendant is engaged in the business of cellular service and related services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 877-206-4741 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SUPERIOR SURFACING: Installers Seek to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor A. Rodas and Roy C. Hyman on behalf of themselves and all those similarly-situated who consent to representation, Plaintiffs, v. Jeff G. Loyd and Superior Surfacing Specialists, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00628 (N.D. Ga., February 11, 2020), seeks to recover full back pay for unpaid wages and overtime wages owed, liquidated and compensatory damages, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Superior is in the business of installing floor, wall, and lining systems for industrial flooring and commercial flooring environments and selling flooring materials where Plaintiffs worked as installers. They claim to have worked hours in excess of forty hours per week but were not paid overtime premiums. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq. THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C. 1325 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 1506 Suwanee, GA 30024 Telephone: (678) 629-3246 Facsimile: (678) 629-3247 Email: kpr@reddylaw.net TREK TRAVEL: $425K Settlement in King Suit Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case captioned ZEB KING, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TREK TRAVEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-345-wmc.(W.D. Wis.) The parties have now reached a settlement, and before the court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement. Named plaintiff and class representative Zeb King commenced the collective and class action lawsuit against Trek Travel, LLC, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages. Under the lawsuit, plaintiff Zeb King alleged that his former employer, Trek Travel, failed to pay him and similarly-situated employees overtime wages in violation of state law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The settlement creates a common fund of $425,000 to be used to pay participating class members claims, costs, attorneys' fees, and an enhancement payment to the named plaintiff. Based on the entire record in the case, the Court concludes that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) and that the settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/vqt5v6m from Leagle.com Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, by: Steven W. Quattlebaum - quattlebaum@qgtlaw.com - and Chad W. Pekron - cpekron@qgtlaw.com - for appellants. Thrash Law Firm, P.A. by: Thomas P. Thrash - tomthrash@sbcglobal.net - and Williams & Anderson PLC, by: W. Jackson Williams – jwilliams@williamssanderson.com - Peter G. Kumpe- pkumpe@williamssanderson.com - and Heather G. Zachary , 111 Center Street, Suite 2200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201for appellees. UNITED MOTORS LTD: Foster Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Motors Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00961 (N.D. Ill., February 10, 2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. United Motors is an automotive dealership under the name "Liberty Auto Plaza." To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Foster did not give express consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com WALGREENS BOOTS: Shanov Sues Over NDMA and NDEA Tainted Valsartan ----------------------------------------------------------------- HARRY SHANOV, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., and WALGREEN CO., Case No. 2020CH01884 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 14, 2020), seeks financial damages sustained in purchasing Valsartan that contained unsafe levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine and N-Nitrosodiethylamine, as well as for recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, because the presence of unsafe levels of NDMA and NDEA in Valsartan was a material fact to consumers, including the Plaintiff and Class members, Walgreens allegedly made material misrepresentations by representing and warranting that Valsartan did not contain unsafe levels of NDMA and NDEA. The Plaintiff contends that Walgreens represented that its Valsartan was safe and fit for its ordinary and intended uses, subject to disclosed side effects and risks as required by applicable law and standards. He adds that because the Valsartan that Walgreens sold was not safe, was unfit for its ordinary and intended uses, and contained impurities and carcinogens in unreasonably high levels, those representations were false, misleading, and deceptive. Both NDMA and NDEA are carcinogens. Given this increased risk of cancer, consumers would not purchase Valsartan if they knew it contained unsafe levels of NDMA or NDEA that may be injurious to their health, the Plaintiff asserts. Valsartan tablets or Valsartan/HCTZ is a generic hypertension and heart failure oral medication. Walgreens is a global retail and wholesale pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com - and - Boris Parad, Esq. PARAD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 910 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 109 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 418-2020 Facsimile: (847) 418-2022 E-mail: bparad@paradfirm.com WAVVE MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAVVE MARKETING CORP.; and THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01619 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Wavve Marketing provides account management, reporting and CRM access to customers. The Federal Savings Bank provides banking services. The Bank offers savings, loans, checking accounts, mortgages, and online banking services. The Federal Savings Bank operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Percy, Esq. SCHLICHTER & SHONACK, LLP 2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 326 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 643-0111 Facsimile: (310) 643-1638 WOOD-MODE INC: Court Certifies Class in Swede WARN Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew Braun of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned WILLIAM SWEDE, CURTIS TREGO, and TINA CLAPPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WOOD-MODE, INC., ROBERT L. GRONLUND, and ROBERT BROOKS GRONLUND, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-CV-00845, (M.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs William Swede, Curtis Trego, and Tina Clapper commenced the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the federal WARN Act and Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) arising out of a factory closure. Plaintiffs move for class certification. Judge Braun opined: "In sum, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law WPCL claim pursuant to Sec. 1367(c)(2). However, Plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed class, as defined in an appropriate Order to follow, satisfies all four factors under Rule 23(a) and meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) on their WARN Act claim. Class certification is appropriate." The Court finds that the class in the case is sufficiently numerous. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit typically has approved classes numbering 40 or more. The proposed class well exceeds this guideline, numbering approximately 900 members. Plaintiffs satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements, the Court adds. Commonality requires the existence of at least one question common to the class such that there is class-wide capacity to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Typicality requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The commonality and typicality requirements are fairly easily met in an action brought under the WARN Act. Common issues in the action include whether Wood-Mode employed more than one hundred employees, whether the class members were employees of Wood-Mode, whether Wood-Mode discharged the class members within thirty days of May 13, 2019 in connection with the mass layoff, whether the class members were affected employees, whether Wood-Mode terminated the class members' employment without cause, whether Wood-Mode provided sixty days' prior written notice of the mass layoff. For the fourth Rule 23(a) requirement, the Court finds that the representatives and their counsel will adequately protect the interests of the class. Because the representatives have the same claim as the class members, their claims do not conflict with those of the class. Moreover, predominance is satisfied because the class includes only those who worked for Wood-Mode, were terminated as part of a mass layoff, and possessed the same rights under the WARN Act. This class is sufficiently cohesive that issues common to the class predominate over individual issues. The Court also finds that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating the matter. The case involves approximately nine hundred claimants with relatively low dollar-value claims. Declining to certify the class may result in a flood of litigation or, perhaps more likely, many of the claims not being brought. It would also create a risk of inconsistent judgments. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/sm3rhf6 from Leagle.com William Swede, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack A. Raisner - jar@outtengolden.com - Outten & Golden LLP, M. Vance McCrary - vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com - The Gardner Firm, PC, Mary E. Olsen - molsen@thegardnerfirm.com - The Gardner Firm, P.C., 210 S Washington Ave., Mobile, AL 33602 Rene' S. Roupinian -rsr@outtengolden.com - Outten & Golden LLP, Stuart J. Miller - sjm@lankmill.com - Lankenau & Miller, LLP & Samuel J. Cordes – SJCordes@rothmangordon.com - Rothmon Gordon, P.C. Wood-Mode, Inc., Defendant, represented by Harry J. Giacometti – harry.giacometti@flastergreenberg.com -Flaster Greenberg PC, Thomas J. Francella , Cozen O'Connor & Vincent Candiello , Cozen O'Connor, One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert L. Gronlund, Defendant, represented by Harry J. Giacometti , Flaster Greenberg PC, James M. Matour- jmatour@dilworthlaw.com - Dilworth Paxson LLP & James J. Rodgers- jrodgers@dilworthlaw.com - Dilworth Paxson LLP. Robert Brooks Gronlund, Defendant, represented by Harry J. Giacometti , Flaster Greenberg PC. WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Business Lenders, LLC, Fiverr Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01334 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. World Business Lenders is a lender and service provider company while Fiverr is an online marketing company. World Business Lenders hired Fiverr to generate leads and place calls on its behalf. Fabricant claims to have received calls from the Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services. Fabricant is on the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com [*] Measure to Ban Forced Arbitration Now in the Senate ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Ann Wilson, writing for WXYZ, reports that whether you realize it or not, there's a good chance you have given up your right to take problems - even serious ones - with a product or service -- to court. Forced arbitration clauses have become more and more common when you sign up for things like credit cards and mobile services. In 2015, Volkswagen publicly admitted to secretly programming some if its diesel engines to cheat emissions tests. Hundreds of thousands of owners banded together in a group lawsuit, which helped cast a very bright spotlight on this very deceptive behavior. Experts at Consumer Reports are concerned that this type of accountability may happen less often, because many companies are making an easy-to-miss but important change in their sales agreements -- called a forced arbitration clause. "Basically it means you're giving up your right to take a dispute to court," said Scott Medintz, Consumer Reports editor. "This is a constitutional right you have and you're giving it up even before you know that there's a dispute." Arbitration clauses are typically buried in the fine print of product manuals and websites. Most people don't even realize they are agreeing to them. "The implications for consumers are huge," Medintz said. "Many of the rules that are in place to ensure fairness in the court system are missing from arbitration. So, for example, uhm, the arbitrators don't technically have to follow the letter of the law - and if you're not happy with the result, you, you generally don't have a right to appeal." Unlike a court of law, which is open and public - arbitration is private, with no public record. Plus, unlike a court of law, arbitration does not allow people to join together to fight back, as happened in the Volkswagen class-action suit. Consumer Reports says the best way to protect yourself is to buy from companies that don't make you forfeit your legal rights in advance. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to read the fine print ahead of time. But with forced arbitration clauses spreading throughout the marketplace, you may find you don't have a choice. But there may be hope coming from Capitol Hill - in September, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would ban forced arbitration. It's now in the Senate. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***