/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 ***