/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200323.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 59 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York 195 BURGER: Grinblat Seeks to Certify Class in ADA Suit 33 PARK APARTMENTS: Maldonado et al. Balk at Late Fees 3M CO: NRWA Files Class Action vs PFAS Manufacturers A. CHURRASQUEIRA INC: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ACE AMERICAN: Court Rejects FLSA Claim in Sandbergen Suit ACORNS ADVISORS: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ACUREN INSPECTION: Faces McKinney Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Moore Seeks to Certify Class Action ADRIANNA PAPELL: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York AIR EVAC: $3M Settlement in Peck Labor Suit Has Final Approval AIRBNB INC: Rome Withdraws Class Action for Tax Legislation ALABAMA: Governor Kay Ivey Faces Farranto Civil Rights Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Schepler Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ANANDA HEMP: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANFIELD INTERIORS: Valerio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ANZ BANKING: Slater and Gordon Files Class Suit on Junk Insurance ATCHISON COUNTY, KS: Powell Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class BECTON DICKINSON: Bronstein Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline BECTON DICKINSON: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit BECTON DICKINSON: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Suit BECTON DICKINSON: Schall Announces Class Action Filing BEYOND MEAT: Sends Spam Text Messages, Massaro Claims BIG CHILL INC: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Amacker Substance Exposure Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Barthe Substance Exposure Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Bradford Substance Exposure Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Garcia-Maradiaga Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Soniat Substance Exposure Suit BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: McMahon Sues over OT Pay, Misclassification BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Sheriff Sued Over Employee Benefit Plan BUREAU OF PRISONS: No COVID-19 Measures for Inmates, Nellson Says CAMILLA CORP: Cooks Sues in C.D. California Over Violation of ADA CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Jerry Suit Dismissed with Curative Conditions CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Nichols Suit Dismissed w/ Curative Conditions CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Pearl Claims CMRE FINANCIAL: Trim Sues Over TCPA Violation & Privacy Invasion CREDIT CONTROL: Munoz Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation DEL REAL LLC: Underpays Pox Packers, Garcia Suit Alleges DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Airoso et al. Claim DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Bransky et al. Claim DIRECTV GROUP: Court Issues Protective Order in Perez Suit DONA JUANA GROCERY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages EAGLEMARK SAVINGS: Faces Voss FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California EDWARD R JAMES: Kozak Sues Over Breach of Construction Contract ELITE LABOR SERVICES: Gomez Consumer Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. EQUIFAX INC: Faces Quinones FCRA Class Suit in E.D. New York FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Reneau ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: AmEx Can Intervene in Elouarrak Suit FLORIDA PANTHERS: Sends Spam Text Messages, Mittenthal Claims FOUR STAR FRUIT: Faces Santiao Suit in California Superior Court FREEMAC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Sikes Says GCU TRUCKING: Faces Lawson et al. Labor Suit in Sacramento GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action for Excessive Oil Consumption GOJO INDUSTRIES: Mislabels Purell Hand Sanitizers, Miller Claims GOOGLE LLC: Ridenti Sues Over Youtube's Unlawful Data Collection GORDON REED: Mud Engineers Class Certified in Alaniz Suit GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Canadian Class Action Suit Accuses $100MM Fraud GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Sues over False Statements on Intergy GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE: Former Students Win Class Action GULFPORT ENERGY: Misleads Securities Investors, Woodley Alleges HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Faces Aranowitz et al. Suit in New Jersey HALLCON CORP: Ellsworth Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Court Excludes Expert Opinions in Briscoe Suit HEMPED NYC: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation HOMELAND SECURITY: Secretary Sued over New Immigration Policy I-44 TRUCK: Enlow Suit Seeks Certification of Collective Action INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces Rogers TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls IOOF HOLDINGS: Hit With Class Action For Hiding Misconduct JDE CONTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Guss Suit Alleges JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Quebec Judge OKs Class Action vs. Tylenol JZJ SERVICES: Faces Macaluso Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA KELLOGG CO: Sued Over Vanilla Flavoring In Granola KENOSHA, WI: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in Olrich Suit KICKOFF USA: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation KOMAR LAYERING: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation KRUGER FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pho Suit Alleges LOCK AND KEY: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Breach LORAIN, OH: App. Court Reverses Class Certification in Winrod Suit LOWE'S COMPANIES: Belaski Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Managers LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Nelson Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under MMWL LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Anderson et al Say LOWE'S HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Bartholomew Suit MACE SECURITY: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York MASON COMPANIES: Sued by Williams in S.D.N.Y. for ADA Violation MCCLINTOCK INDUSTRIES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Pastore MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Lawson Sues in S.D. Indiana Over FDCPA Violation MEDROBOTICS: Faces Spears et al. Suit over Unpaid Wages, Benefits MEIJER INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA MERCURY GENERAL: Court Awaits for Results of Mediation MISSOURI STAR: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York MITCHELL SIMONE: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation MIUS TAMIAMI: Longhini Sues in S.D. Florida Over Violation of ADA MONSANTO CO: Initial Approval of Nieves Settlement Sought MONSTER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Williams Suit Alleges MOTORSPORT AFTERMARKET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOVING SOLUTIONS: Approval of Settlement for Final Cert. Sought MYLAN NV: Must Face Certified Epipen Class Action NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Property Reassessment Suit OK'd as Class Action NAT'L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL: Bartolomei Sues over Political Ads NATIONAL STUDENT: Deal in Robinson FCRA Suit Gets Preliminary OK NEW YORK, NY: App. Court Reverses Dismissal of Diamond's NYCHA Suit NORTHWOOD ASSET: Faces McGlynn FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania OAK STREET HEALTH: Fails to Pay Regular and OT Wages, Pratt Says OPTUM SERVICES: Fails To Pay Proper Wages, Auguste Alleges ORACLE INC: To Pay $12 Million to Settle ERISA Suit OXO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York PAPER STORE: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York PENNYMAC LOAN: Rozanski Consumer Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts PERFORMANCE APPAREL: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Breach PERSONNEL STAFFING: Class Cert. Bid in Hunt Suit Wins Initial Okay PETER THOMAS ROTH: Court Denies Certification in Miller Class Suit PETSENSE INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation PIZZA TO YOU: Class of Delivery Drivers Conditionally Certified PLYMOUTH ROCK: Clough Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Acts PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Burress Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia RETAILMENOT INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Prendergast Sues over Trading System Outage ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Riggs Seeks Damages for March 2020 Outages SAMY'S CAMERA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation SAN DIEGO GAS: Buckhanon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code SANIMAX USA: Newport City Can't Intervene in Keech Torts Suit SANOFI SA: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida SASOL LIMITED: Hagens Berman Alerts Investors of Class Action SASOL LIMITED: Schall Announces Class Action Suit Filing SENTENCING COMMISSION: Bid to Certify Class in "Siraj" Denied SHOE SENSATION: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York SHRI GURU RAVIDAS: Sued by Society Members in E.D. New York SIMMONS BEDDING: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIX SIGMA HVAC: Miller Sues over Unlawful Employment Practice SMARTPAK EQUINE: Williams Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation SMITTYS SUPPLY: Zornes Seeks to Certify Tractor Fluid Buyers Class SOTHEBY'S INT'L: Cal. App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Teed Suit SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in St. Lucie SPECIALIZED LOAN: Ochondo Sues in Colo. Over Breach of Contract STARS ON BRAND: Hambarsomian Suit Seeks $12,128 in Unpaid Wages STRAWBERRY CREEK: Underpays Case Managers, House Developers SUMMIT SPORTS: Court Dismisses Morgan's ADA Class Suit SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Gibson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA TD AMERITRADE: Filed False Registration Statement, Kent Alleges TEK-COLLECT INC: Velazquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California TRAEGER PELLET: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York TRAINA INTERACTIVE: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRATTORIA TRE COLORI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montor Claims TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Hagens Berman Alerts Investors to Class Action UNION RAILROAD: Discriminates Against Pension Workers, Scott Says UNITED PARCEL: Murray et al. Alleges Discrimination, Unpaid Wages UNITED STATES: ED Faces O'Neal Civil Rights Suit in Louisiana VAPORDNA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation VERDE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Marshall Electricity Rates Action VERMONT COUNTY STORE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VI-JON INC: Sanitizer's Anti-Virus Claim Deceptive, Sibley Says VOWERK LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation WERNER ENTERPRISES: Midgett Suit Seeks to Certify Classes WEST MARINE: Settlement Reached in Class Action Over Merger WESTPAC BANKING: Pawar Reminds Investors of March 30 Deadline WEYMOUTH-HINGHAM MOTOR: Guzman Seeks OT Wages for Car Salesmen WILCO LIFE: District Court Reopens Anderson's Insurance Suit WYETH INC: Denial of Schlager Claims in Diet Drugs Suit Upheld ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01126-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. operates as a direct marketer of contact lenses. The Company offers wide range of contact lenses. 1-800 Contacts serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com 195 BURGER: Grinblat Seeks to Certify Class in ADA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SEMYON GRINBLAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 195 BURGER CORP., BILL WOLF PETROLEUM CORP., JOHN DOE 1-X, persons yet unknown, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Corporations 1-X, entities yet unknown, Case No. 19-cv-3799 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals who reside within the geographic boundaries of the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuit who live with a disability as defined by 28 CFR section 36.104, and more specifically use a wheelchair to aid in mobility, and who have encountered or will encounter the physical barriers to entry located at the Subject Facility which are violative of the Applicable Laws." The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to remedy Defendants' violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff, who was born in 1949, is an elderly man aged beyond his 70 years. He suffers from debilitating diseases and was diagnosed with a neurological condition, which affects his walking. 195 Burger operates a fast food restaurant. Bill Wolf is a real estate company.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff are: Adam Ford, Esq. FORD & CRANE PLLC 228 Park Avenue S. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 518-7007 E-mail: adam.ford@fordcranelaw.com - and - Michael Grinblat, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL GRINBLAT 817 Broadway, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (347) 796-0712 Facsimile: (212) 202-5130 E-mail: michael.grinblatesq@gmail.com 33 PARK APARTMENTS: Maldonado et al. Balk at Late Fees ------------------------------------------------------ EVELYN MALDONADO; and MEGAN KINNEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 33 PARK APARTMENTS, LLC; and UNITED PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-391 (Mass. Super., Middlesex Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' unlawful practice of charging late fees and court costs in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant collected late fees or court fees despite the fact that there were no lease between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs requiring the payment of such fees. Also, neither the Plaintiffs have a judgment requiring the payment of court costs to the Defendants. 33 park apartments, LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability company engaged in operating apartment buildings. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C. One State St., Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com - and – Edward Rice, Esq. 45 Pierce Street Malden, MA 02148 Telephone: (617) 475-0909 E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com - and – Christopher Saccardi, Esq. BRODERICK BANCROFT & SACCARDI 313 Washington Street, Suite 207 Newton, MA 02458 Telephone: (617) 500-3198 E-mail: cts@broderickbancroft.com 3M CO: NRWA Files Class Action vs PFAS Manufacturers ---------------------------------------------------- Cristina Tuser, writing for WQP Mag, reports that the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) filed a lawsuit against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufacturers for making and selling the chemicals. The lawsuit is seeking money for testing and treatment as well as damages and penalties from the 3M Co., Tyco Fire Products L.P., National Foam, Inc., Buckeye Fire Protection, Chemguard, Dupont and the Chemours Company. The NRWA and its members are being tasked with expending significant resources to test and remediate groundwater contamination, according to the press release. "Defendants were aware that PFAS chemicals are toxic to animals and humans, do not biodegrade, are persistent in the environment, move easily through soil and groundwater, and pose a significant risk to the environment and human health," said the five-count complaint. "Nevertheless, they elected to manufacture, market, and sell these chemicals, placing profits over human health and the environment." According to the class action lawsuit, the relief is necessary to determine the extent of the contamination, in order to protect the public health and the environment. The suit also mentions that these companies designed and sold aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products ridden with PFAS, which is used at military and civilian airports throughout the U.S. "The Class Members do not possess the resources necessary to test and determine if their drinking water wells are contaminated with PFAS," alleges the complaint. "As a result, they have no way of knowing whether they are endangering the health of their citizens by providing drinking water contaminated with PFAS." The five-count complaint touches upon the following: strict liability for a defective products (AFFF), failure to warn about the drinking water wells laden with PFAS, negligence, public nuisance and trespassing. [GN] A. CHURRASQUEIRA INC: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A. CHURRASQUEIRA INC. d/b/a A. CHURRASQUEIRA RESTAURANT & BAR, and MANUEL CARDOSO, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-01352 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked for 78 hours or more per week during his employment, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and kitchen preparer. A. CHURRASQUEIRA RESTAURANT & BAR is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Jamaica, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 ACE AMERICAN: Court Rejects FLSA Claim in Sandbergen Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK SANDBERGEN, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04567-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order: 1. granting Defendants Ace American Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company's (Chubb) motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as moot. The Court finds that the balance of the factors weighs in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and, thus, dismisses those claims without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his state-law claims in state court. The Plaintiff was employed by Chubb from 2013 to 2016 as a Senior Underwriter in Chubb's Commercial P&C Insurance segment based out of Chubb's San Francisco office. The Plaintiff worked in the technology industry group within Commercial. Plaintiff's base salary was $118,000 when he started, and he received raises every year. He also received annual bonuses of over $20,000. ACE American Insurance Company's parent company, ACE Limited, acquired Federal's parent company, Chubb Corporation, in January 2016. The Plaintiff resigned after the merger, in May 2016.[CC] ACORNS ADVISORS: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acorns Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Acorns Advisors, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02248 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acorns Advisers, LLC offers investment advisory services. The Company provides wealth and portfolio management, brokerage, and custody services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com ACUREN INSPECTION: Faces McKinney Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brock McKinney, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. ACUREN INSPECTION, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00948 (S.D. Tex., March 13, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant pays these workers a flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff or the Putative Class Members a guaranteed salary. Plaintiff McKinney worked for the Defendant as an NDT Technician. Acuren provides state-of-the-art nondestructive testing, inspection, engineering and rope access integrated services delivered through over 80 locations and over 4,000 employees throughout North American and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.co - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Moore Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARY MOORE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., an unknown business entity; ADDUS HOMECARE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-01519-HSG (N.D. Cal., Filed July 11, 2017), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 21, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action; 2. appointing Mary Moore as class representative; 3. appointing Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and Lawyers for Justice, PC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g); and 4. ordering that notice of certification shall be given to the class members. Addus HealthCare, doing business as Addus HomeCare, provides health care services. The company offers physical, occupational, and speech therapies, as well as home care, nursing, housekeeping, meal preparation, and adult day services. Addus HomeCare serves patients in the United States.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Tatiana G. Avakian, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Arby Aiwazian, Esq. Tara Zabehi, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com arby@lfjpc.com tara@lfjpc.com ADRIANNA PAPELL: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADRIANNA PAPELL, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01130-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Lewis J. Liman Adrianna Papell is a women's apparel company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com AIR EVAC: $3M Settlement in Peck Labor Suit Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON PECK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., d/b/a AIR EVAC LIFETEAM, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:18-615-DCR (E.D. Ky.), Judge Danny E. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington granted Peck's unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement agreement and to certify the class. Peck is a former flight nurse employed by Defendant Air Evac EMS, Inc. He filed a class action on behalf of former flight nurses, flight paramedics, and pilots employed by Air Evac for overtime compensation dating from Oct. 25, 2013, to July 17, 2019. Before March 2014, Air Evac required that an individual work 120 hours per pay period before receiving overtime pay. Air Evac modified the policy in March 2015 to lower the threshold to 84 hours per pay period before being eligible for overtime compensation. Air Evac then changed its policy in July 2018 to pay all flight nurses, paramedics, and pilots overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Peck filed the lawsuit alleging that the previous overtime policy violates the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA"). The parties previously agreed to a gross settlement fund of $3 million, including up to $800,000 in attorney's fees and costs and a $15,000 incentive for Peck. The parties later filed a motion to amend the settlement seeking $750,000 in attorney's fees and a gross settlement fund of $2.95 million. The Court granted the motion to amend the settlement to reduce the amount of attorney's fees. The proposed class includes 428 current and former flight nurses, flight paramedics, and pilots employed by Air Evac in the Commonwealth of Kentucky at any time from Oct. 25, 2013 through July 17, 2019. The parties explained that individual settlement payments were calculated by reviewing Air Evac's payroll and timecard records to establish the amount of unpaid overtime for each class member assuming that the claims were true. The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; conditionally certified the class; appointed class counsel, a class representative, and a settlement administrator; approved the schedule outlined in the settlement agreement; and approved the notice packet and opt-out form. Peck then submitted an unopposed motion for final class certification and approval of the class action settlement. A final fairness hearing was originally scheduled for October 2019. After preliminary approval, Rust Consulting, the administrator of the settlement fund, obtained an address, website, and toll-free telephone number to receive questions, opt-out statements, objections, and provide information on the settlement. Air Evac provided Rust with a list of the last known addresses, social security numbers, and award amounts for all the potential class members. Notice packets were mailed to 427 class members through first class mail and the class members were advised they had a month to file an opt-out statement, dispute, or objection. Rust traced addresses for 18 notice packets that had been returned as undeliverable. Five notice packets remain undeliverable. Additionally, five class members disputed their individual settlement payment; the counsel reviewed the disputes and discussed them with Rust Consulting. Further, one individual, Caleb Michael Ensley, submitted an opt-out statement. Two individuals submitted letters to the Court to object to the settlement offer. First, Caroline Caine submitted an objection stating that she was "cheated" out of money owed and a strong message should be sent by penalizing the Defendant more harshly. Next, Robert Steven Haney filed an objection to the settlement offer, explaining that the paperwork sent to him regarding the lawsuit does not include 32 hours of overtime he worked every other week. In the motion for final approval and the motion to amend the settlement, the Plaintiff requests final approval of the settlement agreement, approval of attorney's fees of $750,000, and to accept the remaining schedule for the settlement process. The parties request that the deadline for the defendant to provide the gross settlement fund to the administrator be within seven days of the effective date of the settlement and that the administrator disburse the gross settlement fund within seven days of receiving the fund. In October 2019, the Court directed the Plaintiff to notify the Court regarding whether it had provided the proper notice under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b) to the appropriate government officials. The parties then notified the Court that notice had not originally been filed but was mailed on Oct. 10, 2019. Accordingly, the final fairness hearing originally scheduled for Oct. 16, 2019, was continued until Jan. 17, 2020. At the final fairness hearing held on Jan. 17, 2020, the Court discussed the settlement with the counsel and invited anyone present to comment on the settlement if they wished. The parties discussed the terms of the settlement agreement, the objections, and the reasonableness of attorney's fees. Additionally, Class Member Haney appeared and discussed his objection to the individual settlement agreement. The parties also addressed a procedure for resolving Haney claim. No other individuals attended the hearing. Judge Reeves concludes that the notice provided was reasonable. Additionally, the settlement amount and attorney's fees and costs are fair, reasonable, and adequate. There was only one opt-out and only one true objection to the settlement. The settlement as a whole is fair and reasonable and the class will be finally certified and the settlement accepted. Accordingly, the Judge granted Peck's motion to certify the class and to approved the final settlement. The settlement agreement is approved. The provisionally certified class is now finally certified pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of settlement only. Judge Reeves approved the schedule for effectuating the settlement agreement. Objections to the settlement are overruled. The attorneys' fee request, as amended by the Plaintiff's counsel, is also approved. The parties will notify the Court within 30 days whether the claim has been resolved or if the parties need the Court's assistance in finally resolving any issues regarding Mr. Haney's claim. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/HU7pvC from Leagle.com. Jason W. Peck, individually & Jason W. Peck, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles William Arnold, Arnold & Miller, Christopher D. Miller, Arnold & Miller, Gerry Lynn Calvert, II, Cowan Law Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman -- gera.meyman@gmail.com -- Apt B & J. Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC. Air Evac EMS, Inc., doing business as Air Evac Lifeteam, Defendant, represented by Keith Moorman, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Mallory M. Stumpf -- mallory.zoia@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice & Rodney A. Harrison -- rodney.harrison@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice. AIRBNB INC: Rome Withdraws Class Action for Tax Legislation ----------------------------------------------------------- K.T. McKee, writing for Northwest Georgia News reports that an occupancy tax bill introduced in the Georgia legislature to include rental accommodations such as Airbnbs led the City of Rome to withdraw its federal class-action lawsuit against Airbnb - at least for now. City Attorney Andy Davis confirmed he filed a voluntary dismissal of the $5 million suit the city had filed jointly with Cartersville, Tybee Island and Hart County at the end of January. "There is House Bill 448 pending in the legislature ... at this point we thought we would give the legislation the opportunity to work its way through and see how that might develop," Davis said. The city sued Airbnb in order to force the San Francisco-based company to comply with tax laws requiring the collection and remittance to the city monies the business calls a "service fee." HB 448, currently pending in the House Rules committee, would amend the definition of "innkeeper" and require "lodging facilitators" such as Airbnb and VRBOs to pay the hotel/motel tax currently being collected from traditional accommodation facilities. Although Davis wouldn't say how much money he believes the city is missing out on from Airbnb properties, he said that on any given weekend, there are at least 50 Rome residents renting out rooms in their homes. So far, the city hasn't been paid anything for those rentals, despite the fact that Airbnb charges fees to both the homeowner and their guests. Rome has an 8% hotel/motel excise tax. Its ordinance defines "hotel" to mean "any structure or any portion of a structure including any lodginghouse, roominghouse, dormitory, Turkish bath, bachelor hotel, studio hotel, motel, motor hotel, auto court, inn, public club or private club containing guestrooms." According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have been demanding the taxes from Airbnb for the past five years, but the company has failed to respond. "Defendants engage in deceptive, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices by misrepresenting to consumers and owners that Defendants are displaying and collecting Occupancy Taxes, which in fact Defendants do not display or collect," the suit claims. Davis said a similar bill to HB 448 was introduced last year, but did not get traction. He said this time it's at least moving through committees. If the legislation does not make it to law, the class-action suit can be refiled, Davis said. [GN] ALABAMA: Governor Kay Ivey Faces Farranto Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivey, et al. The case is styled as Kimberly P. Farranto, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Kay Ivey, in her official and respected capacity as Governor for the State of Alabama; Donald J. Trump, in his official and highly respected capacity as President of the United States of America; United States of America; Case No. 2:20-cv-00342-JHE (N.D. Ala., March 13 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. Kay Ellen Ivey is an American politician serving as the 54th governor of Alabama since 2017. The Plaintiff, of Montevallo, Alabama, appears pro se.[BN] AMERICAN HONDA: Schepler Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BILL SCHEPLER and ADRIAN GARCIA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-06043-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 11, 2020, for an order under: 1. certifying these Classes and naming Plaintiffs as Class representatives for their respective Classes: Illinois Classes, (Represented by Mr. Schepler) Illinois Warranty Class: "all current owners and lessees of a 2017 or 2018 model year Honda CR-V 1 in Illinois with fewer than 150,000 miles"; Illinois Consumer Fraud Class: "all purchasers and lessees of a new 2017 or 2018 model year Honda CR-V in Illinois"; and California Classes, (Represented by Mr. Garcia) California Warranty Class: "all current owners and lessees of 2017 or 2018 model year Honda CR-V in California with fewer than 150,000 miles"; California Consumer Fraud Class: "all purchasers and lessees of a 2017 or 2018 model year Honda CR-V in California"; and CLRA Subclass: "all members of the California Consumer Fraud Class who are "consumers" within the meaning of California Civil Code section 1761(d)"; and 2. appointing Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, the Murphy Law Firm, and The Frasher Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel; Excluded from all of the above Classes are the following individuals and/or entities: the Court, all Court personnel involved in the handling of his case; Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM" or "Defendant") and its parent company, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and any entity in which AHM has a controlling interest; all individuals who timely elect to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and any attorneys or other employees of any law firms hired, retained, and/or appointed by or on behalf of the named Plaintiffs to represent the named Plaintiffs and/or any proposed Class members or proposed Class in this lawsuit. Schepler asserts claims for breach of express warranty under Illinois law on behalf of the Illinois Warranty Class; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Garcia asserts claims for: breach of express warranty under California law on behalf of the California Warranty Class; violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and False Advertising Law on behalf of the California Consumer Fraud Class. American Honda is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1401 Dove Street, Suite 540 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (323) 510-4060 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 1212 SE 2 Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (854) 763-8607 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - Ryan R. Frasher, Esq. THE FRASHER LAW FIRM, P.C. 3209 W. Smith Valley Road, Ste. 253 Greenwood, IN 46142 Telephone (317) 300-8844 Facsimile: (317) 218-4501 E-mail: rfrasher@frasherlaw.com ANANDA HEMP: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANANDA HEMP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01131-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ananda Hemp Inc. manufactures a wide range of hemp based consumer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ANFIELD INTERIORS: Valerio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Arias Valerio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ANFIELD INTERIORS, INC. and RUAIRI K. DUFFY, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-02275 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week but was never paid at time and one half his regular rate when he worked more than 40 hours a week, says the complaint. Even though the Plaintiff was not exempt, he was not paid overtime in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a drywall installer. Anfield provided and continues to provide construction services as a contractor on numerous constructions projects in New York City and Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ANZ BANKING: Slater and Gordon Files Class Suit on Junk Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that two class actions against ANZ Banking Group and Westpac have been filed in the Federal Court on [Feb. 21], alleging the banks sold worthless insurance. Slater and Gordon filed both class actions based on claims of unconscionable conduct, inappropriate advice, misleading or deceptive conduct and unjust enrichment. It comes only months after the firm settled with NAB for $49.5 million. The class action relates to consumer credit insurance which was added to credit cards and personal loans insured by ANZ and Westpac. The firm has alleged the insurance policies provided little or no benefit to the bank's customers, but generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the banks and insurers. It is also alleged the banks added insurance to customers' loans and credit cards but did so without their consent or without them being told it was optional. Slater and Gordon practice group leader Andrew Paull said: "For too long, banks have abused their power by selling junk insurance products, adding thousands to customers credit card bills or personal loan repayments while providing little or no benefits." Both banks stopped selling "junk insurance" last year when ASIC outright banned the practice of cold calling potential customers. Mr Paull said these are welcome changes but not enough has been done to compensate the victims of "predatory" sale tactics. "The customers we've spoken with trusted the big banks," said Mr Paull, adding they continue to be out of pocket after being pressured with the worthless insurance cover. "Many people who were sold the insurance had disabilities, were unemployed or were critically ill, and therefore not eligible to claim on the policies. Others were led to believe the insurance they bought was free or mandatory. Neither was the case," he said. Slater and Gordon said the banks enjoyed extraordinarily profit margins on these junk products. Between 2011 and 2018, ANZ paid out claims totally just 6.9 cents for every dollar they collected in credit card insurance payments. In comparison, motor vehicle insurance pays out approximately 85 cents for every dollar of premiums. [GN] ATCHISON COUNTY, KS: Powell Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Darren Lee Powell v. Jack Laurie, Travis Wright, Amber Martin, Crystal Martin, and Will Ebhart, Case No. 5:20-cv-03074-SAC (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify class of inmates confined in Atchison County Jail. Atchison County is a county located in northeastern Kansas.[CC] BECTON DICKINSON: Bronstein Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Becton, Dickinson and Company (NYSE: BDX) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Becton securities between November 5, 2019 and February 5, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/bdx. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Becton's Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm prioritization issues; (2) as a result, the Company was investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues, rather than a software upgrade to "make enhancements;" (3) the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in connection with the software remediation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) consequently, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/bdx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Becton you have until April 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] BECTON DICKINSON: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Becton between November 5, 2019 and February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Becton investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Becton's Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm prioritization issues; (2) as a result, the Company was investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues, rather than a software upgrade to "make enhancements;" (3) the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in connection with the software remediation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Becton during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 27, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] BECTON DICKINSON: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Becton, Dickinson and Company (NYSE: BDX) between November 5, 2019 and February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Becton investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Becton class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1791.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Becton's Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm prioritization issues; (2) as a result, the Company was investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues, rather than a software upgrade to "make enhancements;" (3) the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in connection with the software remediation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1791.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BECTON DICKINSON: Schall Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Becton, Dickinson and Company ("Becton Dickinson" or "the Company") (NYSE: BDX) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 5, 2019 and February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 27, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Becton Dickinson's Alaris infusion pumps suffered from software errors and alarm issues. The Company invested its resources in remediation efforts instead of software upgrades to "make enhancements." These software errors were likely to cause regulatory delays for the Company, and it would be forced to recall Alaris pumps from some customers. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Becton Dickinson, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. http://www.schallfirm.com/ Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] BEYOND MEAT: Sends Spam Text Messages, Massaro Claims ----------------------------------------------------- The case, NAZRIN MASSARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., and PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00510-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sent text messages to her cellular phone number using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to advertise and promote Beyond Meat's products without prior written express consent, thereby violating her rights of privacy. Beyond Meat, Inc. is an El Segundo, California-based manufacturer of alternative animal food products made from protein isolate, rice and bean proteins, and various plant extracts. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. is a non-profit animal rights organization with its principal place of business at 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org alex@nicholaslaw.org - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3330 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Kirkland, Esq. KIRKLAND LAW LLC One Galleria Blvd Suite 1900, Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 370-9077 E-mail: jmk@kirkland.lw.com BIG CHILL INC: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Big Chill, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Big Chill, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02254 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Big Chill provides retro-styled and professional-grade kitchen appliances give you modern performance with a timeless design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Amacker Substance Exposure Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned CRAIG LEIGHTON AMACKER, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION M (1), Civil Action No. 18-9653, (E.D. La.). The toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On January 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (MSA). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option (BELO) that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions (LMPC). BP does not dispute that Craig Amacker was an oil-spill clean-up worker or that he is a member of the MSA class. BP also does not dispute that Amacker's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC. Rather, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Amacker has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other substances legally caused his or her physical condition. The scheduling order in the case required Amacker to produce to BP his expert reports by November 4, 2019. To date, Amacker has not produced any expert reports to BP. Thus, the Court granted BP's motion for summary judgment and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/rnrs3hh from Leagle.com Craig Leighton Amacker, Plaintiff, Howard L. Nations nations@howardnations.com - Nations Law Firm. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Robert B. McNeal - rbmcneal@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Cherrell Simms Taplin - cstaplin@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft - dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore - pdore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Barthe Substance Exposure Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defandants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned PERRY JOSEPH BARTHE, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION M (2), Civil Action No. 18-10973, (E.D. La.). The toxic-tort lawsuit arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On January 11. 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (MSA). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option (BELO) that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions (LMPC). BP does not dispute that Perry Joseph Barthe was an oil-spill clean-up worker or that he is a member of the MSA class. BP also does not dispute that Barthe's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC. Rather, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Barthe has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other substances legally caused his or her physical condition. The scheduling order in the case required Barthe to produce to BP his expert reports by December 2, 2019. To date, Barthe has not produced any expert reports to BP. Thus, the District Court granted BP's motion for summary judgment and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/vzpjypn from Leagle.com Perry Joseph Barthe, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations nations@howardnations.com - Nations Law Firm. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Robert B. McNeal - rbmcneal@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Cherrell Simms Taplin - cstaplin@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft - dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore - pdore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Bradford Substance Exposure Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned WILLIAM JABUS BRADFORD, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION (1), Civil Action No. 18-9880, (E.D. La.). The toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On January 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (MSA). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option (BELO) that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions (LMPC). BP does not dispute that William Jabus Bradford was an oil-spill clean-up worker or that he is a member of the MSA class. BP also does not dispute that Bradford's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC. Rather, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Bradford has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other substances legally caused his or her physical condition. The scheduling order in the case required Bradford to produce to BP his expert reports by November 18, 2019. To date, Bradford has not produced any expert reports to BP. Thus, the Court granted BP's motion for summary judgment and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/t9pvl6l from Leagle.com William Jabus Bradford, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations nations@howardnations.com - Nations Law Firm. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Robert B. McNeal - rbmcneal@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Cherrell Simms Taplin - cstaplin@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft - dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore - pdore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Garcia-Maradiaga Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DENIS GARCIA-MARADIAGA, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION M (5), Civil Action No. 18-11850, (E.D. La.). The toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. On January 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions ("LMPC"). Garcia-Maradiaga alleges that he was exposed to oil, dispersants, and harmful chemicals while he worked as a clean-up worker in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Garcia-Maradiaga was diagnosed with chronic conjunctivitis, chronic pharyngitis, and other chronic conditions. Garcia-Maradiaga alleges that these medical conditions were legally and proximately caused by exposure to oil, dispersants and other harmful chemicals from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP does not dispute that Garcia-Maradiaga was an oil-spill clean-up worker or that he is a member of the MSA class. BP also does not dispute that Garcia-Maradiaga's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC. Rather, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Garcia-Maradiaga has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other substances legally caused his or her physical condition. The scheduling order in the case required Garcia-Maradiaga to produce to BP his expert reports by December 23, 2019. To date, Garcia-Maradiaga has not produced any expert reports to BP. Thus, the Court granted BP's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 30, 2020 Order and Reason is available at https://tinyurl.com/tgsp9ap from Leagle.com Denis Garcia-Maradiaga, Plaintiff, pro se. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Robert B. McNeal - rbmcneal@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore - cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Cherrell Simms Taplin - cstaplin@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore - pdore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Soniat Substance Exposure Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JOY CHANTREAL SONIAT, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION M (5), Civil Action No. 18-10585, (E.D. La.) The toxic-tort lawsuit arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On January 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (MSA). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option (BELO) that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions (LMPC). BP does not dispute that Joy Amacker was an oil-spill clean-up worker or that he is a member of the MSA class. BP also does not dispute that Amacker's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC. Rather, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Amacker has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although a a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other substances legally caused his or her physical condition. The scheduling order in the case required Amacker to produce to BP his expert reports by November 4, 2019. To date, Amacker has not produced any expert reports to BP. Thus, the Court granted BP's motion for summary judgment and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 19, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/tw54pd2 from Leagle.com Joy Chantreal Soniat, Plaintiff, Howard L. Nations nations@howardnations.com - Nations Law Firm. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Robert B. McNeal - rbmcneal@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Cherrell Simms Taplin - cstaplin@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft - dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore - pdore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: McMahon Sues over OT Pay, Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR MCMAHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sales brokers, Plaintiff v. BRECKENRIDGE GRAND VACATIONS, LLC d/b/a PEAK 8 PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00754 (D. Colo., March 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for misclassifying salespersons as independent contractors and failing to compensate them actual wages, overtime, and required benefits as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Act. . The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a sales broker from approximately 1997 until October 22, 2019. Breckenridge Grand Vacations, LLC is a Colorado-based limited liability company that engages in the practice of renting and selling timeshare-based real estate. It is also doing business as Peak 8 Properties, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Sheriff Sued Over Employee Benefit Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, JAMES G. DE MATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-004812 (Fla. 17th Cir., March 17, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breach of statutory fiduciary duties with regards to the administration of the Deferred Compensation Plan for Governmental Employers, under Florida Statute Section 112.656. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others participants of the Plan, alleges that the Defendants failed to establish reasonable procedures and protocols to ensure a rigorous vetting of investment options and administrative-service providers to make sure that Investment-Management Fees and Administrative Expenses do not exceed a reasonable amount. The Plan is a defined-contribution retirement plan in which participants contribute a percentage of their pre-tax earnings to the Plan, and the employer may also make a contribution matching that of the participant up to a previously specified percentage. Broward County Sheriff's Office is a Florida governmental entity and a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. is a Columbus, Ohio-based retirement solutions provider, which was and is doing business in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Rothstein, Esq. Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq. Lorenz Michel Pruss, Esq. DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN P.A. Offices at Grand Bay Plaza 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-1920 Facsimile: (305) 374-1961 E-mail: Drothstein@dkrpa.com Jkaplan@dkrpa.com Lpruss@dkrpa.com - and - Neil H. Greenberg, Esq NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C. 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, NY 11758 Telephone: (516) 228-5100 Facsimile: (516) 228-5106 E-mail: Ngreenberg@nhglaw.com BUREAU OF PRISONS: No COVID-19 Measures for Inmates, Nellson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD NELLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARDEN J. BARNHART and UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00756-GPG (D. Colo., March 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(a)(4), 2201, 2202, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65, and other applicable federal laws. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated prisoners, claims that the Defendants failed to protect the health and well-being of prisoners at the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons by not taking reasonable steps in order to protect them from the spread of the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The Defendants have yet to implement a systemic testing and isolation protocol for prisoners and staff which exposed them to serious risk of being infected. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons is a Colorado-based federal agency organized and existing under federal laws. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Vittoria G. Carminati, Esq. NDH LLC 4601 DTC Blvd., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 445-5655 E-mail: mvcarminati@ndh-law.com - and - Mario B. Williams, Esq. NDH LLC 44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 254-0442 Facsimile: (404) 935-9391 E-mail: mwilliams@ndh-law.com - and - Alexandra L. Parrott, Esq. NDH LLC 4601 DTC Blvd., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 445-5655 E-mail: aparrott@ndh-law.com CAMILLA CORP: Cooks Sues in C.D. California Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camilla Corporation. The case is captioned as Richard Cooks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Camilla Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01562-JFW-MAA (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[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 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DARRYL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; and MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00945 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC was founded in 2002. The company's line of business includes providing management consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-6160 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com - and - Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Jerry Suit Dismissed with Curative Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JERRY VENABLE REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CIV-16-782-PRW (W.D. Okla.), Judge Patrick R. Wyrick of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) with certain curative conditions. The Defendant does not oppose dismissal, but requests that the following conditions be imposed upon dismissal: (1) Chesapeake is awarded its costs and attorney's fees; (2) any subsequent refiling of the present action by the Plaintiff, individually or as a class representative, or by the Plaintiff's counsel, must be brought in the Court; and (3) the Plaintiff and its counsel must destroy all confidential materials produced by Chesapeake within 10 days of dismissal. Judge Wyrick finds that while the motion should be granted, curative conditions on dismissal are necessary to ensure that substantial justice is afforded to all parties and to alleviate the legal prejudice that the Defendant will suffer upon dismissal. The Defendant will undoubtedly suffer legal prejudice upon dismissal -- it has expended close to half a million dollars in the case and related case Bill G. Nichols v. Chesapeake Operating, LLC et al. to date. Judge Wyrick also views the Plaintiff's explanation for dismissal -- that it takes too much time and effort to litigate far away from home -- as insufficient, particularly in light of the concerns the Defendant expresses that the Plaintiff's counsel is forum shopping to its extreme financial detriment. And although the litigation has not yet reached class certification, it has been dragging along since 2016 due to numerous actions of the Plaintiff (motion for abstention, CAFA discovery, petition to Tenth Circuit for leave to appeal order denying remand, petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). Needless to say, the stage of litigation at which the case currently sits is not indicative of the massive amount of time and effort the Defendant has had to put into the case. Due to the legal prejudice that the Defendant will suffer upon dismissal, the Court deemed proper dismissal on the following curative conditions: (1) In the event counsel for the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff files any suit seeking to certify substantially the same class against Chesapeake Operating, LLC, such suit will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and assigned to the Hon. Patrick R. Wyrick. (2) In the event such suit is filed, all discovery accomplished in the case will carry over to the new case. (3) In the event such suit is filed, the Defendant will be permitted to file an application for costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that these conditions accord substantial justice to both parties based on the equities facing both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Court also finds that the protective order already in place should continue to govern the destruction of confidential documents. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is given leave to file a motion to withdraw its motion for voluntary dismissal by no later than four days from the date of the Order. In the event it fails to file a motion to withdraw by that deadline, the Court will enter an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice upon the conditions described. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/BTts6Z from Leagle.com. Jerry Venable Revocable Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Sharp Barton LLP, Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Sharp Barton LLP, Michael E. Grant, Grant Law Firm, Ryan C. Hudson -- rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Sharp Barton LLP & Scott B. Goodger, Rex A Sharp PA. Chesapeake Operating LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick L. Stein -- patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Timothy J. Bomhoff -- Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Craig Alan Haynes -- Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight & Rachelle H. Glazer -- Rachelle.Glazer@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Nichols Suit Dismissed w/ Curative Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BILL G. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC, and CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CIV-16-1073-PRW (W.D. Okla.), Judge Patrick R. Wyrick of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Nichols' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) with certain curative conditions. The Defendants do not oppose dismissal, but request that the following conditions be imposed upon dismissal: (1) Chesapeake is awarded its costs and attorney's fees; (2) any subsequent refiling of the present action by the Plaintiff, individually or as a class representative, or by the Plaintiff's counsel, must be brought in the Court; and (3) the Plaintiff and his counsel must destroy all confidential materials produced by Chesapeake within 10 days of dismissal. Judge Wyrick finds that while the motion should be granted, curative conditions on dismissal are necessary to ensure that substantial justice is afforded to all parties and to alleviate the legal prejudice that the Defendants will suffer upon dismissal. The Defendants will undoubtedly suffer legal prejudice upon dismissal -- they has expended close to half a million dollars in the case and related case, Jerry Venable Revocable Family Trust v. Chesapeake Operating, LLC, to date. Judge Wyrick also views the Plaintiff's explanation for dismissal -- that it takes too much time and effort to litigate far away from home -- as insufficient, particularly in light of the concerns the Defendants express that the Plaintiff's counsel is forum shopping to its extreme financial detriment. And although the litigation has not yet reached class certification, it has been dragging along for over three years. Needless to say, the stage of litigation at which the case currently sits is not indicative of the massive amount of time and effort the Defendants have had to put into the case. Due to the legal prejudice that the Defendants will suffer upon dismissal, the Court deemed proper dismissal on the following curative conditions: (1) In the event the counsel for Plaintiff or the Plaintiff files any suit seeking to certify substantially the same class against Chesapeake Operating, LLC, or Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, such suit will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and assigned to the Hon. Patrick R. Wyrick. (2) In the event such suit is filed, all discovery accomplished in this case will carry over to the new case. (3) In the event such suit is filed, the Defendants will be permitted to file an application for costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that these conditions accord substantial justice to both parties based on the equities facing both the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Court also finds that the protective order already in place should continue to govern the destruction of confidential documents. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is given leave to file a motion to withdraw his motion for voluntary dismissal by no later than four days from the date of the Order. In the event he fails to file a motion to withdraw by that deadline, the Court will enter an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice upon the conditions described. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/OV1uQF from Leagle.com. Bill G Nichols, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA, Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA & Michael E. Grant, Grant Law Firm. Chesapeake Operating LLC & Chesapeake Exploration LLC, Defendants, represented by Laura J. Long -- laura.long@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Patrick L. Stein -- patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft & Timothy J. Bomhoff -- Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft. CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Pearl Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURIE PEARL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CLEARLINK PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10529-NMG (D. Mass., March 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated an overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Utilization Review Employee between approximately February 2019 and October 2019. Plaintiff and Utilization Review Employees provide remote utilization review services for Defendant's clients. Clearlink Partners, LLC is a Georgia-headquartered professional services firm that provides staffing and consulting services to Managed Care Organizations and various healthcare providers with a focus on supplementing and servicing utilization review needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Anastasia Doherty, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com adoherty@llrlaw.com – and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net kconnon@bm.net CMRE FINANCIAL: Trim Sues Over TCPA Violation & Privacy Invasion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Trim, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00481-L-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 13, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. On June 5, 2019, the Defendant called the Plaintiff's cellular telephone. When the Plaintiff answered the Defendant's call, there was a noticeable delay before the Defendant's representative, agent, or employee joined the call, indicating the use of an automated telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff did not give "prior express consent" to receiving calls from an ATDS. The Defendant's call was not for the purpose of an emergency. The Defendant's call was unsolicited and not in response to an inquiry from the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. The Defendant is a California corporation headquartered in Brea, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. Abbas Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CREDIT CONTROL: Munoz Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, LLC. The case is styled as Humberto Munoz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, LLC, doing business as: Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00175-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control Services was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com DEL REAL LLC: Underpays Pox Packers, Garcia Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEL REAL, LLC d/b/a DEL REAL FOODS; STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV05491 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as box packer. Del Real, LLC produces food products. The Company offers chicken, meat, sausage, and cheese products. Del Real serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 145 South Spring Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile: (310) 860-0771 E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Airoso et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ EVANGELINA AIROSO; SANDRA BOWERS; and ALAINA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01289-ODW-RAO (C.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2020) is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased the Defendant's "DevaCurl No-Poo Original" non-lathering conditioning cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Original hair-conditioner, DevaCurl Light Defining Gel, DevaCurl Low-Poo Original cleanser, DevaCurl Low-Poo Delight cleanser, DevaCurl No-Poo Decadence cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Delight hair-conditioner, DevaCurl One Condition Decadence hair-conditioner, Melt into Moisture Mask, Styling Cream, DevaCurl Leave-In Decadence conditioner, Super Stretch Coconut Curl Elongator, Wavemaker, and DevaCurl Ultra Defining Gel, which are used for personal cosmetic purposes. In 2002, the Defendant created and developed the formula for the DevaCurl No-Poo Original, which is marketed as containing no sulfate, and is also marketed as an "innovative new haircare category" and a "game-changing alternative to traditional shampoo." However, despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused many curly haired consumers across the United States to purchase and use the Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation, excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during normal use by consumers. Indeed, thousands of consumers have reported their hair failing out shortly after or during actual use of the Products. The Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of the Products. For example, the Defendant's website makes statements relating to its No-Poo Product such as "[t]raditional shampoo can be too harsh for curls. That's why we made No-Poo Original! The non-lathering formula with peppermint and grapeseed oil gently cleanses without stripping the natural oils your curls need." With regard to its One Condition Original product, the Defendant's website states "When it comes to curls, it's all about condition, condition, condition. So apply, rinse and repeat as often as needed!" These statements and others were and are false, deceptive, and misleading and have harmed the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendant appears to be aware of the issues with its Products but conceals and fails to disclose that the Products cause hair loss and shedding, by intentionally blaming other risk factors such as giving birth, stress, scalp buildup, dandruff, losing weight, certain illnesses, and more. Deva Concepts LLC manufactures hair care products. The Company produces and markets a range products for cleaning, conditioning, and styling curly hair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20016 Tel: 202-640-1168 Fax: 202-429-2294 E-mail: dperry@wbmllp.com gmason@wbmllp.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Bransky et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- AUBREY BRANSKY; KAREN CHANDLER; CARINE GHANNOUM, and MING SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-20604-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2020) is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased the Defendant's "DevaCurl No-Poo Original" non-lathering conditioning cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Original hair-conditioner, DevaCurl Light Defining Gel, DevaCurl Low-Poo Original cleanser, DevaCurl Low-Poo Delight cleanser, DevaCurl No-Poo Decadence cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Delight hair-conditioner, DevaCurl One Condition Decadence hair-conditioner, Melt into Moisture Mask, Styling Cream, DevaCurl Leave-In Decadence conditioner, Super Stretch Coconut Curl Elongator, Wavemaker, and DevaCurl Ultra Defining Gel, which are used for personal cosmetic purposes. In 2002, the Defendant created and developed the formula for the DevaCurl No-Poo Original, which is marketed as containing no sulfate, and is also marketed as an "innovative new haircare category" and a "game-changing alternative to traditional shampoo." However, despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused many curly haired consumers across the United States to purchase and use the Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation, excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during normal use by consumers. Indeed, thousands of consumers have reported their hair failing out shortly after or during actual use of the Products. The Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of the Products. For example, the Defendant's website makes statements relating to its No-Poo Product such as "[t]raditional shampoo can be too harsh for curls. That's why we made No-Poo Original! The non-lathering formula with peppermint and grapeseed oil gently cleanses without stripping the natural oils your curls need." With regard to its One Condition Original product, the Defendant's website states "When it comes to curls, it's all about condition, condition, condition. So apply, rinse and repeat as often as needed!" These statements and others were and are false, deceptive, and misleading and have harmed the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendant appears to be aware of the issues with its Products but conceals and fails to disclose that the Products cause hair loss and shedding, by intentionally blaming other risk factors such as giving birth, stress, scalp buildup, dandruff, losing weight, certain illnesses, and more. Deva Concepts LLC manufactures hair care products. The Company produces and markets a range products for cleaning, conditioning, and styling curly hair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Souferis, Esq. SOUFERIS & SHVARTSMAN, PLLC 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1210 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 928-5878 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1168 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com dlietz@wbmllp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com DIRECTV GROUP: Court Issues Protective Order in Perez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Douglas McCormick of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, issued a Protective Order in the case captioned DONEYDA PEREZ as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, LONSTEIN LAW OFFICES, P.C., a New York Professional Corporation; SIGNAL AUDITING, INC., a New York Corporation; JULIE COHEN LONSTEIN; and WAYNE D. LONSTEIN, Defendants. Case No. 8:16-cv-01440-JLS-DFM. (C.D. Cal.). The Protective Order aims to be a guide to the discovery process. Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. The Court cautions that no party may designate any information as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing may be so designated without a good faith belief that there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t84sfwq from Leagle.com Doneyda Perez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Mahoney - kmahoney@mahoney-law.net - Mahoney Law Group APC, Atoy Hari Wilson - awilson@mahoney-law.net - Mahoney Law Group APC, Katherine J. Odenbreit - kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net - Mahoney Law Group APC & Lisa L. Clay , Attorney at Law, 345 Canal St., Suite C202, Chicago IL 60606, pro hac vice. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Archis A. Parasharami - aparasharami@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP, JoAnne S. Jennings- jjennings@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP & Matthew Henry Marmolejo -mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP. Lonstein Law Offices, P.C., a New York Professional Corporation, Julie Cohen Lonstein & Wayne M. Lonstein, Defendants, represented by Timothy M. Schowe - breachresponse@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Bryan M. Leifer - bryan.leifer@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Ryan Douglas Harvey - breachresponse@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Connie Anderson Fickel - connie.fickel@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP. DONA JUANA GROCERY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Pena Castillo and Jose Rene Arias Dume, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DONA JUANA GROCERY STORE INC. (D/B/A DONA JUANA), LOS COMPADRES 1 GROCERY STORE INC. (D/B/A LOS COMPADRES GROCERY), JUAN MANUEL ORTIZ, JUAN SOTO, and MERCEDES HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-02273 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiffs were employed as a general assistant, stocker, porter, and cashier at the Defendants' deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli/grocery, located at Bronx, New York under the name "Dona Juana (f/k/a Los Compadres Grocery)."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EAGLEMARK SAVINGS: Faces Voss FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EAGLEMARK SAVINGS BANK. The case is styled as Jeremy Voss, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. EAGLEMARK SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 2:20-cv-02467 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Eaglemark Savings Bank is a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Thomas Martin , III, Esq. MARTIN AND BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Phone: (323) 940-1700 Fax: (323) 328-8095 Email: tom@mblawapc.com EDWARD R JAMES: Kozak Sues Over Breach of Construction Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Kozak and Michelle Kozak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDWARD R. JAMES & COMPANY, and BRIGHTON MEWS VENTURE, LLC, Case No. 2020CH03145 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 13, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to perform contractual obligations relating to the Defendants' construction of the Plaintiffs' homes. The Plaintiffs allege claims of breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and consumer fraud against the Defendants for their misleading and false statements relating to the execution of the construction contracts for the homes. On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs contacted ERJ in order to purchase one of its townhome units in the Park Ridge development. ERJ and Brighton Mews provided the Plaintiffs with advertising materials that described the Park Ridge development as "luxurious" and "maintenance free." On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs were shown a model home located at 305 S Northwest Highway, Unit 3 (the "Model"). The Model, which is designated as the "Andover" design in the Defendants' marketing materials, was completely built with luxury finishes, appliances, and lighting. The Model appeared to be flawless in design and construction. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs contracted with Brighton Mews to finish the Unit. The Plaintiffs chose the same floorplan as the Model. The Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that their unit would resemble the Model (the "Contract"). On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs closed on the finished townhome. Incident to that closing, the Plaintiffs conducted a walk-through of the Unit the day previously. The Plaintiffs informed the Defendants that the Unit was not constructed in a manner consistent with the Contract and consistent with the Defendants' prior representations. Specifically: a) Sections 19 .1 and 19 .2 of the Contract require the garage drywall to be finished in the same manner and to the same degree as the interior drywall, finished with 5/8 Type X gypsum board on garage walls and ceilings applied with mastic and screws taped and finished with white primer; and b) Section 20 of the Contract requires the installation of "Corian" thresholds where tile transitions to carpet in two upstairs bathroom doorways, an upstairs laundry closet doorway and basement foyer. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have never finished the garage as required by sections 19.1 and 19.2 of the Contract, and never installed thresholds into the house nor installed any material that is of equivalent or better quality than a threshold as required by Section 20 of the Contract. They note that the failure to adequately finish the walls in the garage and to provide thresholds are separate breaches of the Contract. As a result of Defendants' failure to install thresholds, the carpet in the Unit has begun to pull back from the tile and unravel throughout the home. The Defendants have engaged in similar contractual violations with numerous other individuals relating to the construction of their homes and townhomes, and these individuals have been damaged by Defendants actions in the same manner as the Plaintiffs, says the complaint Plaintiffs Timothy Kozak and Michelle Kozak are buyers, who purchased a custom townhome from the Defendants located at 303 S Northwest Hwy., Unit 3, in Park Ridge, Illinois (the "Unit"). Edward R. James & Company is a luxury new home construction company based out of Glenview, Illinois, and specializes in building home and townhome developments tailored to a buyer's demands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-726-3400 ELITE LABOR SERVICES: Gomez Consumer Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. Elite Labor Services Weeklys, Ltd., an Illinois corporation; Elite Staffing, Inc., an Illinois corporation; Southland Employment Services, Inc. a California corporation; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. HG20053055, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 13, 2020 and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01805. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. Elite Labor Services Ltd., doing business as Elite Staffing, Inc., provides temporary employment and staffing services. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan Reed Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces Quinones FCRA Class Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The case is captioned as Monica Quinones, Maria Paz, Efrain Oyola, Christine America, Christian Acosta, Alpha Diallo, Raveenga Perera, Rafael Martinez, Maria Genao-Plasencia, John Washington, and Brittney D'Agostino, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00861-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax is one of the three largest consumer credit reporting agencies, along with Experian and TransUnion. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD B. GELLER 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 Facsimile: (718) 589-7124 E-mail: epbh@aol.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Reneau ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- ANGELA RENEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00938 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. operates as a national discount store. The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel, accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products. Family Dollar Stores serves customers in the State of North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and - R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: AmEx Can Intervene in Elouarrak Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOHAMAD ELOUARRAK on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Intervenor, Case No. 1:19-cv-03666 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted non-party American Express National Bank's motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Elouarrak commenced the class action against Firstsource Advantage, LLC alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Using an American Express credit card, Elouarrak allegedly incurred a debt on his account. Subsequently, he received three letters from "American Express Global Collections," one each in January, February, and March of 2019. Each Letter offered to settle Elouarrak's account for a percentage of the outstanding balance. Elouarrak takes issue with certain aspects of the Letters. He alleges that the Letters violate the FDCPA because they fail to disclose that the debt they offer to settle is no longer legally enforceable due to the passage of time. He also alleges that the return address and telephone number on the Letters do not belong to American Express, but to Firstsource. Firstsource, an agency which "attempts to obtain payments of debts owed," has contracted with American Express to collect debts as a third-party vendor. Elouarrak states that American Express and Firstsource have jointly developed and implemented a collection strategy specifically designed to avoid compliance with the FDCPA. According to Elouarrak, American Express uses another third-party vendor to send the Letters, not Firstsource, to shield Firstsource from liability for FDCPA violations. In addition, Elouarrak asserts that Firstsource "masquerades as American Express" when answering phone calls to the numbers listed in the Letters by identifying itself as American Express Global Collections. American Express moves to intervene as a matter of right, arguing that it has significant protectable interests in defending against the claims about its conduct. It notes the arbitration agreement it has with Elouarrak as the source of one such interest. It also identifies interests in communicating with shareholders, collecting on its accounts, and maintaining business and contractual relationships with third-party vendors such as Firstsource. Under Rule 24(a)(2), a proposed intervenor needs to meet four elements: (1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the subject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practical matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and (4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the existing parties to the action. Because the parties do not dispute timeliness and inadequate representation, the discussion will focus on the interest in the subject matter of the action and the potential impairment of interests. Judge Coleman finds that to prevail, the proposed intervenor's interest must be directly related to the question at issue in the lawsuit. The key question in this suit is whether Firstsource illegally misrepresented its identity during telephone calls by allegedly claiming to be American Express. The business and contractual relationship between American Express and Firstsource is therefore of direct importance to the question at issue. Moreover, this interest is unique because the right to maintain a contractual relationship with third-party vendors "belongs to" American Express, not Firstsource. American Express faces allegations of wrongdoing arising exclusively out of its relationship with Firstsource. Firstsource, in contrast, is a third-party vendor facing scrutiny for its own actions. As a result, American Express' business and contractual relationship with Firstsource meets the second element of the Rule 24(a)(2) standard. Next, Judge Coleman finds that American Express has a protectable interest in identifying the proper forum in which to settle Elouarrak's claims, whatever that forum may be. This interest is directly related to the question at issue, as it determines where that question will be resolved. An interest in arbitration is also unique to American Express. Although both American Express and Elouarrak are parties to the arbitration agreement, Elouarrak claims that the agreement does not apply to the present action. Therefore, the interest in asserting the right to arbitrate "belongs to" American Express. These attributes indicate that American Express' interest in arbitration suffices under the second element of the Rule 24(a)(2) standard. Judge Coleman then finds that the interest falters in demonstrating the requisite direct relationship to the issue the case seeks to resolve. The key question here is whether Firstsource's alleged telephone communications violated the FDCPA. The fact that the debt was allegedly incurred upon an American Express account is not directly related to that question. Furthermore, the suit challenges only Firstsource's actions. Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, American Express' ability to communicate with its cardholders and contract with debt collectors will continue unimpeded within the bounds of the law. These attributes weigh against a finding that American Express's interest in communicating and collecting on accounts suffices under Rule 24(a)(2). Nevertheless, American Express' other identified interests fulfill the element as required under Rule 24(a)(2). Finally, American Express' interest in proper forum usage based on its arbitration agreement with Elouarrak would be impaired by the disposition of the action. Its argues that the action falls under its arbitration agreement and should not be in federal litigation. Allowing Elouarrak and Firstsource to litigate without the involvement of American Express would certainly impair American Express's interest in identifying and utilizing the proper forum under the agreement. American Express has met its burden in fulfilling the third requirement under Rule 24(a)(2). For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman granted American Express' motion to intervene. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/TGTSDs from Leagle.com. Mohamad Elouarrak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Marco -- dmarco@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C., Larry Paul Smith -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C. & Robert J. Tomei, Jr., JTLG, LLC. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Charles Frontino, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp, Alisa M. Taormina, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, James Joseph Morrissey, Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Jeffrey D. Pilgrim -- jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Jennifer Lisa Majewski -- jmajewski@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP & Kingsley Chinedu Nwamah -- knwamah@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp. FLORIDA PANTHERS: Sends Spam Text Messages, Mittenthal Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC MITTENTHAL, ANITA JAIRAM, and KEVlN HILLOW, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLORIDA PANTHERS HOCKEY CLUB, LTD.; PHGP LLC; JAKE SCHREIBER; and DAVID BRUNSON, Defendants, Case No. CACE-20-004769 (Fla. 17th Cir., March 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants sent text messages to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system without anyone's prior express written consent in an attempt to advertise and sell products and services in Florida. Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. is a professional hockey team operator that conducts business in Sunrise, Florida. It is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. PHGP, LLC is a general partner of Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. based in Sunrise, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - David P. Milian, Esq. Ruben Conitzer, Esq. Juan J. Rodriguez, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILlAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com ecf@careyrodriguez.com jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com cperez@careyrodriguez.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave #417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FOUR STAR FRUIT: Faces Santiao Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Four Star Fruit, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as HECTOR VERA SANTIAO, AN INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FOUR STAR FRUIT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JOSEPH VINEYARD ESTATES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; THE WILDWOOD GROUP, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; BLANC VINEYARDS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DELANO FARMS COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION; and RACHMA CONTRACTING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-100477 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe. The Defendants are food production companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Fine Bollinger, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5824 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (818) 963-5954 E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com FREEMAC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Sikes Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Sikes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FREEMAC, INC. d/b/a JOHNSTONE SUPPLY, STEVE HAMLIN, and RUSSELL MACE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00144 (E.D. Va., March 13, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing the Plaintiff to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving all the compensation he was due under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and the Class overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid warehouse employee. Freemac, Inc., doing business as Johnstone Supply, is a cooperative wholesale distributor of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") equipment and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Thomas, Esq. Amy J. Inge, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT 310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434-951-7224 Fax: 434-951-7244 Email: dthomas@michiehamlett.com ainge@michiehamlett.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Katie R. McGregor, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713-425-7100 Fax: 713-425-7101 Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com kmcgregor@bchlaw.com GCU TRUCKING: Faces Lawson et al. Labor Suit in Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against GCU Trucking, Inc. The case is captioned as JERRY LAWSON; and MENDOZA, DANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GCU TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2020-00275203-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 10, 2020). GCU Trucking, Inc. is a family owned and operated, customer oriented trucking and aggregate supplying company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Darren Guez, Esq. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action for Excessive Oil Consumption ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a General Motors (GM) class action lawsuit filed over oil consumption problems includes these vehicles with Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines. 2010–2014 Chevrolet Avalanche 2010–2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2010–2014 Chevrolet Suburban 2010–2014 Chevrolet Tahoe 2010–2013 GMC Sierra 2010–2014 GMC Yukon 2010–2014 GMC Yukon XL The class action lawsuit alleges General Motors manufactured and sold vehicles that consume abnormally high quantities of oil because of numerous problems with the engines. The plaintiff claims the primary problem is the piston rings that don't hold enough tension to keep engine oil in the crankcase, resulting in low oil levels and inadequate lubrication of engine components. This eventually causes complete engine failure and a huge expense for repairs or replacements. According to the oil consumption class action, the engines suffer from numerous problems, including fouled spark plugs, "ring wear, lifter collapse, bent pushrods, camshaft wear, valve wear, rod bearing wear, rod breakage, wristpin wear, wristpin breakage, crankshaft wear and main bearing wear..." The oil consumption lawsuit also alleges the active fuel management system contributes to the problem. The system includes an oil pressure relief valve that sprays oil at the piston skirts. But this oil spray allegedly overloads and fouls the defective piston rings and causes engine oil to migrate past the rings, accumulating as carbon buildup on the surfaces of the combustion chambers. The class action says another problem with the Vortec 5300 engine is the PCV system that vacuums oil from the valvetrain into the intake system to be burned in the combustion chambers. The plaintiff claims the PCV system is defective and contributes to excessive oil consumption. Even the oil life monitoring system is allegedly defective because it doesn't warn a driver when the engine is dangerously low on oil by monitoring oil levels. The class action says the system monitors engine conditions such as temperature and revolutions to estimate the oil quality, but not the oil levels. Adding more oil allegedly doesn't prevent fouling of the spark plugs that cause the engines to misfire and shut down, leaving occupants stranded. Past fixes offered by GM allegedly have done nothing to fix the oil consumption problems, but the automaker overhauled the Vortec engines starting with model year 2014 vehicles. The plaintiff says the redesign was ordered due to oil consumption problems. The changes included an improved sealing ring package, a shield that deflected oil spray away from the piston skirts and a new valve cover. In addition, the engines included baffled PCV orifices and GM started using an oil level sensor. According to the class action lawsuit, GM knows about the oil consumption problems because of consumer complaints and technical service bulletins sent to dealerships. The GM class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division: Martell, et al., v. General Motors LLC. The plaintiff is represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, DiCello Levitt Gutzler, and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. [GN] GOJO INDUSTRIES: Mislabels Purell Hand Sanitizers, Miller Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Miller, Jerome McDaniel, Matthew Downing and Jasmine Wilder, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a PURELL, Case No. 4:20-cv-00562-SO (N.D. Ohio, March 13, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading labeling, advertising and marketing of Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products, including gels and foams. The Defendant has advertised and marketed, and continues to advertise and market, that the Products help prevent infection, as well as diseases, such as the flu and the common cold. The Defendant's labeling and marketing of the Products invokes specific statistics and other claims which imply to consumers that the statistics are backed by sound scientific evidence, when in fact, there is no sound scientific evidence to support the statistics or other claims. Therefore, the Plaintiffs say, the labeling and marketing of the products is misleading because they imply sound scientific support when none exists. The Plaintiffs purchased the Products based on the claims made in the Defendant's false labeling, advertising and marketing. The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs and Class members for all damages resulting from these violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased at least one of the Products. The Defendant manufactures and distributes the Products, consisting primarily of ethyl alcohol, under the brand Purell, throughout the United States via third party retailers and the Defendant's Web site.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tim L. Collins, Esq. Ezio A. Listati, Esq. TRASHER DINSMORE & DOLAN 1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 412 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 255-5431 Facsimile: (216) 255-5450 Email: tcollins@tddlaw.com - and - Edward F. Haber, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. Kathryn Y. McCauley, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law dschubert@sjk.law nschubert@sjk.law kmccualey@sjk.law GOOGLE LLC: Ridenti Sues Over Youtube's Unlawful Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paula Ridenti, as parent and guardian of R.A. and R.M.A., minors; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and YOUTUBE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10517-NMG (D. Mass., March 13, 2020), is brought on behalf all children from whom the Defendants have collected personal information without express parental consent, in violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. The case arises out of the Google Companies' unfair and unlawful collection of personal information. In order to maximize advertising revenue, the Google Companies collect information from viewers and track the viewer's online activities, thus, permitting the Google Companies to present advertising that is specifically targeted to each particular viewer based on the particular viewer's viewing history and other personal data the Google Companies have collected about the viewer, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that certain YouTube channels are plainly directed to children under the age of thirteen, and, in fact, the Google Companies have marketed YouTube to advertisers based in part on the Google Companies' ability to target advertising to children under the age of thirteen. The Google Companies collected personal information from children under the age of thirteen in order to serve targeted advertising to them, all without receiving any consent from those children's parents for the collection and use of such personal information. The Google Companies have engaged in unfair acts in violation of Chapter 93A by collecting personal information, such as persistent identifiers, from viewers it knew were children under the age of thirteen, without providing notice to or obtaining verifiable consent from the children's parents. The Google Companies have derived substantial profits from their unlawful collection of personal information through YouTube from Massachusetts children, in the form of advertising revenue generated as a result of its targeted advertising, which in turn depends upon its collection of personal information, says the complaint. Hence, the Plaintiff contends, the Google Companies are liable to the Plaintiff and Class members for all damages resulting from the Google Companies' unfair acts and practices Plaintiff Paula Ridenti is a resident and citizen of Massachusetts who is the parent and legal guardian of both R.A. and R.M.A. The Google Companies operate YouTube, a video-sharing platform on the Internet at http://www.youtube.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Patrick Vallely, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com pvallely@shulaw.com GORDON REED: Mud Engineers Class Certified in Alaniz Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RAY ALANIZ v. GORDON REED & ASSOC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01595-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol B. Whitehurst entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action and request for notice to putative class members The Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective action including "ALL MUD ENGINEERS EMPLOYED BY GORDON REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., AT ANY TIME FROM AUGUST 20, 2016 THROUGH THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS MATTER, WHO WERE PAID A DAY RATE AND DID NOT RECEIVE OVERTIME." The Court further ordered that: -- within 10 days of this Order the parties shall file with the Court a Joint Proposed Notice that complies with this Order. In the event the parties cannot agree as to any specific issue they must identify and brief the issue(s) separately at which time the Court will make a determination; -- the Defendant shall, within 14 days from the Order approving the Joint Proposed Notice, provide plaintiff's counsel with the names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential opt-in plaintiffs ("Court-Ordered Information"), in a usable electronic format, preferably Excel; -- 21 days from the date of the Court's Order approving notice, plaintiff's counsel shall be permitted to send notices of this action in the form set forth in the approved Joint Proposed Notice, by mail, email and text message, and by posting the Notice and Consent form on the internet; -- the putative class members shall have 60 days to return their signed Consent form for filing with the Court. The Plaintiff's counsel shall also take down the posted Notice and Consent Form from the web at this time; and -- the Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied. The Court said, "[T]he plaintiff has presented evidence in his Declaration that he and other Putative Class Members communicated with defendant through their cell phones. Because Plaintiff has put forth uncontroverted evidence that defendant communicated with plaintiff and the Putative Class Members via cell phone, text message notice is appropriate. The Court finds, however, that the plaintiff has failed to establish that reminder notices are necessary."[CC] GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Canadian Class Action Suit Accuses $100MM Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Val Wilde, writing for Patheos, reports that massive international charity Gospel for Asia is facing a $100 million class action lawsuit in Canada. A new claim filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Canada, plaintiffs allege that more than $100 million went astray, and that the charity "defrauded or made negligent misstatements" to entice donors. Concerns about fiscal impropriety in Gospel for Asia's Canadian branch first surfaced in 2015, after New Glasgow pastor Bruce Morrison partnered with an American auditor to investigate the charity his congregation had been supporting through their donations for more than twenty years. To say he uncovered some irregularities would be an understatement: "[Indian non-profits] have to report all the money they receive from foreign sources in a year… I researched it, and to my utter surprise, they weren't receiving any money from Canada, or they didn't report receiving any money from Canada. Whereas in Canada between 2007 and 2014, they reported to the federal government - to the Canadian Revenue Agency - that they had sent $93.8 million to India. And over there they reported receiving none of it." His investigation became the basis for a CBC News investigation, in which reporter Angela MacIvor spoke to some of the same former employees whose stories prompted Morrison's original investigation. Christine Harris, who used to work in the Canadian branch's Ontario headquarters, spoke about the difference between their promotional materials and the reality of the organization's projects: "We started seeing these slideshows and prayer requests for these big buildings over in India. There were universities, schools, massive hospitals… We're talking top-of-the-line, high-end buildings and professors of the best sort. "This had nothing to do with the poor like our magazines were portraying. So right then, as I'm hearing about these for the first time, I said I think somehow the money isn't getting used like they're saying it is." The question of whether these schools and hospitals are for-profit enterprises remains murky. Johnnie Moore, a spokesperson with Gospel for Asia, insists they're not. But the original plaintiffs in the American lawsuit, ex-employees Matthew and Jennifer Dickson, allege that Gospel for Asia was creating "a multi-million-dollar personal empire" in one of the wealthiest regions of India using money donors believed would go towards buying starving families wells, bicycles, and goats. [GN] GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Sues over False Statements on Intergy ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALTAMONTE PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff v. GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00604-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of written contract, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff, like many health providers, desired certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) software, a type of business software that offers a variety of features relevant to the practice of healthcare. In order to obtain a certification, the selling EHR vendor must ensure that the EHR actually meets the standards of the Meaningful Use program which are codified in federal regulations. Furthermore, Plaintiff purchased licenses and paid monthly fees for the use of Intergy based on Defendant's representations and promises that Intergy satisfied the requirements of the Meaningful Use program. However, Intergy does not meet the requirements of the Meaningful Use program and has not met them for years contrary to Defendant's promises and uniform express representations. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false statements and conceal the truth about the status of its software, failed to timely or reasonably redress non-compliant aspects and disclose many of the problems of its software, and recklessly failed to test Intergy with reasonable diligence during development of software code and updates. Altamonte Pediatric Associates specializes in pediatric healthcare. Greenway Health, LLC sells and offers services relating to EHR software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 352-753-8600 Fax: 352-504-3301 Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. John T. Nicolaou, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Tel: (212)355-9500 Fax: (212)355-9592 Emails: jselbin@lchb.com jnicolaou@lchb.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNTEIN, LLP 150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Tel: (615)313-9000 Fax: (615)313-9965 Email: mchalos@lchb.com - and - Michael J. Brickman, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. James C. Bradley, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A(29464) Post Office Box 1007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Tel: (843)727-6500 - and - Brett Ialacci, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK, LLC 2001 Park Place, North Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205)521-0036 Email: bialacci@badhambuck.com GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE: Former Students Win Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge has sided with a group of former students who sued a Christian boarding school over abuse they suffered decades ago. Justice Janet Leiper says the now-defunct Grenville Christian College will have to pay yet-to-be-determined damages to the former students. The school in Brockville, Ont., advertised itself as an Anglican institution, and had ties to an American sect called the Community of Jesus. Former students testified during the class-action trial that they were subjected to exorcisms and physical beatings. Leiper says the school knowingly created an "abusive, authoritarian and rigid culture which exploited and controlled developing adolescents." The class includes students who lived in residence between 1973 and 1997, when the school was shuttered. [GN] GULFPORT ENERGY: Misleads Securities Investors, Woodley Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT F. WOODLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION; DAVID M. WOOD; KERI CROWELL; and QUENTIN R. HICKS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02357 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations federal securities laws. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Gulfport securities between May 3, 2019 and February 27, 2020, claims that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's internal control over financial reporting, disclosure controls and procedures, and financial statements, which caused the prices of Gulfport securities to artificially inflate during the Class period. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant losses due to the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions that contributed to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Gulfport Energy Corporation is a company that engages in the exploration, development, acquisition, and production of natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids in the U.S. It is located at 3001 Quail Springs Parkway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Faces Aranowitz et al. Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. The case is captioned as DAVID ARANOWITZ; and ROXANE CAMPAGNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01332-KM-JBC (D.N.J., Feb. 10, 2020). The case is assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and referred to Magistrate Judge James B. Clark. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. operates as a special purpose entity. The Hospital offers assisted living, behavioral health, maternity, and clinical services. Hackensack Meridian Health serves patients in the State of New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roopal P. Luhana, Esq. CHAFFIN LUHANA 600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (347) 269-4472 Facsimile: (888) 499-1123 HALLCON CORP: Ellsworth Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA ------------------------------------------------------------- LEONA ELLSWORTH, as an Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HALLCON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; LOOP TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06618 (Cal. Super., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks civil penalties resulting from Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked up to 40 per week or 8 per day. Ms. Ellsworth was employed by Hallcon from September 4, 2018, until November 8, 2019, as a non-exempt driver. Hallcon provides transportation and maintenance services for public and private transit sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. Michael Crosner, Esq. J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Court Excludes Expert Opinions in Briscoe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA BRISCOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-10294 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John R. Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted the Defendants' motions to exclude the expert opinions of Ms. Nicole Peluso and Dr. Lauren Hanley, and (ii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Briscoe, Kristin Magierski, and Emily Adams are mothers who, at the time they gave birth, Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois ("BCBSIL") insured. They allege Defendants BCBSIL and Health Care Service ("HCSC") violated the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") by failing to cover lactation counseling services ("CLS") without cost sharing. The Plaintiffs are individual mothers who obtained insurance with BCBSIL and gave birth between 2014-2016. Shortly after giving birth, they sought CLS services to help with breastfeeding. Unable to find in-network CLS providers, the Plaintiffs sought out-of-network CLS services. As a result of using out-of-network providers, the Defendants subsequently imposed cost sharing. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the ACA's mandate in a variety of ways. They first allege the Defendants' compliance with the ACA is illusory because their practices make it nearly impossible for individuals to find in-network providers. Second, they allege the Defendants violate the ACA by utilizing overly restrictive CLS billing codes that do not capture the extent of CLS services. The Plaintiffs finally allege the Defendants improperly impose cost sharing upon some individuals who received in-network CLS. Based upon these allegations, the Plaintiffs now move to certify the following classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2): a. The ERISA Plan Class (Lactation Services Class): All individuals who on or after Aug. 1, 2012 (i) were or are participants in or beneficiaries of any non-grandfathered, ERISA employee welfare benefit plan sold, underwritten or administered by HCSC in the United States in its capacity as insurer or administrator; (ii) received Comprehensive Lactation Services (CLS); and (iii) incurred costs for a CLS claim unreimbursed by HCSC. b. The Non-ERISA Plan Class (ACA Class): All individuals who on or after Aug. 1, 2012 (i) were or are participants in or beneficiaries of any non-grandfathered, non-federal health benefit plan sold, underwritten or administered by HCSC in the United States in its capacity as insurer or administrator, and (ii) received CLS for which HCSC did not provide coverage without cost-sharing; and (iii) incurred costs for a CLS claim unreimbursed by HCSC. In support of their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs submitted expert reports by Ms. Nicole Peluso and Dr. Lauren Hanley. They retained Ms. Peluso, a lactation consultant, to provide opinions about HCSC' CLS procedure codes. Ms. Peluso bases her testimony upon her expertise as an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant; her knowledge of medical billing for perinatal-related claims; and her review of documents in the case. Dr. Hanley, a practicing physician, specializes in obstetrics, gynecology, and breastfeeding medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. She also teaches at Harvard Medical School. She testifies on CLS training, integration of CLS into primary care provider practice, the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, and CLS coding. The Defendants seek to exclude both experts' testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Judge Blakey finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish the reliability as to Ms. Peluso's and Dr. Hanley's conclusions apart from merely pointing to their experience generally. But witnesses relying upon experience must still explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts so that the Court is not simply required to take the expert's word for it. Because the Plaintiffs' experts fail to explain how their anecdotal experiences enabled them to reliably reach their expert conclusions, the Judge determines they do not meet the Daubert standard. Accordingly, the Judge need not consider the Defendants' argument that Ms. Peluso's and Dr. Hanley's testimony does not assist the trier of fact and grants the Defendants' motions to exclude. Judge Blakely then considers the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiffs fail to present a systemwide policy explaining the Defendants' decision to impose cost sharing on any given claim; (ii) the proposed class members are not readily ascertainable; and (iii) the proposed class contains a host of issues that prevent the Court from certifying a class. Finally, Judge Blakely declines the Plaintiffs' offer to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class to resolve the question of whether HCSC' coverage for CLS violated the ACA. Because the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the broadly phrased issue of whether HCSC' coverage for CLS violated the AC, an issue class would again lead to individualized inquires. For that reason, little efficiency would be gained" by certifying a class for the question. For the reasons he explained, Judge Blakey (i) granted the Defendants' motions to exclude expert testimony, and (ii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/TcxMgo from Leagle.com. Laura Briscoe, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated & Kristin Magierski, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith -- KMD@Chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas E. Chimicles -- NEC@Chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Stephanie E. Saunders -- SES@Chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Mark B. DeSanto, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly M. Donaldson, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP & Paul D. Malmfeldt -- pmalmfeldt@blau-malmfeldt.com -- Blau & Malmfeldt. Emily Adams, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark B. DeSanto, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly M. Donaldson, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP & Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice. Health Care Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Martin J. Bishop, Reed Smith LLP, Raymond A. Cardozo, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Abraham Judson Souza, Reed Smith Llp, Claudia L. Cortes, Reed Smith, Llp & Rebecca R. Hanson, Reed Smith LLP. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Defendant, represented by Martin J. Bishop, Reed Smith LLP, Claudia L. Cortes, Reed Smith, Llp & Rebecca R. Hanson, Reed Smith LLP. HEMPED NYC: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hemped NYC LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hemped NYC LLC, Hemped NYC on Orchard LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02256 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hemped NYC LLC provides CBD oils and CBD wellness products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Secretary Sued over New Immigration Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- R. L'HEUREUX LEWIS-MCCOY; JAMIL DAKWAR, and JOHN HARLAND GIAMMATTEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHAD WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARK MORGAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection; and UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01142-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution, seeking a declaration that the termination is unlawful, an order enjoining it, and attorney's fees. In the State of the Union address, President Trump singled out New York for criticism because of efforts taken in the State to protect immigrant communities. President Trump's Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, announced a blanket ban on New York residents' eligibility to enroll or re-enroll in various programs that enable vetted and approved travelers entering the United States to expedite the border clearance process. The best known of these programs is Global Entry, a program for which millions of people have been approved, including hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. The Trump Administration claims this abrupt and unprecedented ban on New Yorkers' participation in the Global Entry program is necessitated by security concerns raised by New York's recently enacted Green Light Law. That law, which authorizes the issuance of driver's licenses regardless of citizenship or immigration status, limits federal immigration officials' access to state Department of Motor Vehicles records. But the Administration's claim is specious. In fact, that access would provide no relevant information not otherwise available about many if not most New York residents applying for Global Entry, and any information DMV alone may possess would have little or no bearing on their eligibility for the program. In truth, the Trump Administration's closing of Global Entry and the other expedited-traveler programs to New Yorkers is little more than an attempt to coerce New York into participating in federal immigration enforcement by forcing State officials into disclosing sensitive data about driver's license applicants. To accomplish this, the administration has unlawfully banned millions of otherwise-eligible New Yorkers from even applying for Global Entry and the other programs. The ban immediately affects about 80,000 New York residents whose applications were pending when the ban went into effect and another 175,000 whose memberships will expire this year but will be barred from attempting to re-enroll. The Trump Administration's abrupt and summary termination of Global Entry for New York residents is simply another punitive and irrational measure directed at immigrant communities and is one that undermines public safety. It violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antony P.F. Gemmell, Esq. Molly K. Biklen, Esq. Jessica Perry, Esq. Jordan Laris Cohen, Esq. Christopher T. Dunn, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: agemmell@nyclu.org jperry@nyclu.org jlariscohen@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org cdunn@nyclu.org I-44 TRUCK: Enlow Suit Seeks Certification of Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES ENLOW, DONALD DORAN, and GARY TROLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I-44 TRUCK CENTER & WRECKER SERVICE, LLC, PEACOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, MARK ROBBINS, and GAIL ROBBINS, Case No. 4:19-cv-02767-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying following collective: "all hourly-paid employees of I-44 Truck Center who recorded working more than 40 hours in at least one workweek within the past three years but did not receive overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 each workweek". 2. authorizing the sending of notice by mail to each employee in the collective; 3. directing I-44 Truck Center to produce a complete, electronic list of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, together with their current or last known address, phone number, e-mail address, and dates of employment, within 10 days of an Order granting conditional certification. 4. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for the putative opt-in plaintiffs because Defendants intentionally evaded service for more than three months. The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated hourly-paid employees of I-44 Truck who were denied overtime compensation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 501 975 5040 Facsimile: 501 975 5043 E-mail: tim@johnholleman.net INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces Rogers TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERSTATE NATIONAL DEALER SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00554 (N.D. Ohio, March 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dealer Services has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its implementing regulations by placing, or having placed on its behalf, prerecorded calls to cellular telephone subscribers, who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or who have expressly requested not to receive such calls, the Plaintiff alleges. By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this Complaint, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jayson Rogers is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Dealer Services is a nationwide provider of automotive extended protection plans to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Phone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com IOOF HOLDINGS: Hit With Class Action For Hiding Misconduct ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Simpkins, writing for Investor Daily, reports that Shine Lawyers has indicated it will be commencing a class action against IOOF on the behalf of shareholders who were said to suffer losses due to alleged corporate misconduct. The claim has pointed to non-disclosures and "misleading and deceptive conduct", detailing insider trading, staff cheating on exams and breaches of trustee duties occurring between 1995 to 2015. By failing to disclose the alleged misconduct between March 1, 2014 and July 7, 2015, Shine said the wealth group breached its continuous disclosure obligations and may have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The law firm reported it has completed "extensive" investigations into the company's behaviour, with it having obtained a Federal Court order for IOOF to produce relevant documents. Fairfax first published articles on IOOF's purported misconduct in June 2015, including allegations of misbehaviour within IOOF's research department, which provides services to IOOF's dealer network, managed funds and super funds. Following the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, on June 22 that year, IOOF shares experienced a 13.3 per cent drop, down $1.42, as reported by Shine. IOOF managing director at the time, Chris Kelaher, appeared before a Senate hearing to respond to questions about the alleged misconduct and he admitted the group had not reported serious past allegations of insider trading and front-running by senior staff to ASIC. Following Mr. Kelaher's confession, IOOF's share price dropped by another 29 cents. In August 2018, the managing director along with other IOOF executives were questioned again in front of the royal commission. The questioning revealed that IOOF's Questor subsidiary had disadvantaged members of a super fund compared to private investors. After Mr. Kelaher's appearance in the commission, the company's share price fell by a further 6 per cent. APRA launched proceedings against the group over its treatment of its super fund members, as found by the royal commission, which ultimately saw Mr Kehaler resign from IOOF. The regulator's action was eventually unsuccessful. As of mid-February, Shine noted, the financial services provider is trading at $7.05, almost 34 per cent below its share price immediately prior to the Sydney Morning Herald articles being published in June 2015. Shine Lawyers' class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp, who was formerly a senior lawyer in ASIC's enforcement area, commented the new class action is unrelated to the APRA claim and focuses on misconduct between 2009 to mid-2015. "IOOF shareholders have repeatedly seen the value of their shares wiped out by numerous alleged failures of IOOF's management over several years," Mr. Allsopp said. "I'm glad to be pursuing a solution for the many people affected by IOOF's alleged misconduct." IOOF on the other hand, has noted the action is yet to be filed, with a spokesperson commenting: "IOOF does not comment on the speculative actions of legal firms that are seeking expressions of interest from IOOF shareholders in joining a potential class action." Shine has invited shareholders who bought IOOF holdings between March 1, 2014 and July 7, 2015 to register for the action. It has kicked off almost a year after Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased shares between May 2015 and December 2018. Maurice Blackburn launched a suit in 2015 based on the same premise, using documents that whistleblowers had also shared with Fairfax, ASIC and the Senate. The Victorian Supreme Court restrained the class action from moving forward after IOOF then sued Maurice Blackburn seeking the return of the confidential documents handed to the firm by four former employees. At the time, Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese said the case highlighted the "extreme inadequacy" of Australian law to deal appropriately with whistle-blower information. "The fact that IOOF sued Maurice Blackburn and no one else shows that this case was motivated for the sole purpose of stopping our firm from holding IOOF to account on behalf of shareholders," Mr Varghese said. "We still firmly believe IOOF did the wrong thing and should be held to account and that the reason it fought so hard was to avoid the scrutiny a class action would bring." But Mr. Kelaher commented the decision confirmed IOOF's position. "We have always maintained that the proposed class action was misconceived both factually and at law," he said. Litigation Lending is funding the Shine action. Its chief executive, Stuart Price stated: "Class actions like the IOOF class action require the management of financial services companies . . . to account for alleged failures, and promote good corporate governance within the sector." [GN] JDE CONTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Guss Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ TIWO GUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JDE CONTRUCTION, INC.; JOHN EDWARDS; and DOES 1 THROUGH 250, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 20STCV05535 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Guss was employed by the Defendants as laborer. JDE Contruction, Inc. is engaged in the construction business. [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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Quebec Judge OKs Class Action vs. Tylenol ------------------------------------------------------------ Shuyee Lee, writing for CJAD News 600, reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class action lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol. The class action includes Quebecers who bought one of 19 Tylenol products for adults or one of 12 Tylenol products for children between October 2015 and December 2017. Lead plaintiff Kathleen Gauthier never suffered any health problems from taking Tylenol but alleges that Johnson & Johnson misled consumers by failing to disclose and inform them about its side effects, including risk of death and liver problems requiring a transplant. Gauthier said she found out about the risks in 2017 and claims she would have used the painkiller less often and wouldn't have given it to her children if she had been informed. Gauthier alleges the company hid the risks from the public to ensure their share of the market. She further maintains that the company outlined the risks on products sold in the U.S. and reduced the maximum daily dosage for those products but did not do the same in Canada. Montreal cardiologist Dr. Christopher Labos said you need to be aware of the risks, respect the dosage recommendations and consult your doctor. "All pain medications have side effects," said Labos in an interview with CJAD 800. "If you're needing more than eight extra-strength Tylenol a day, that's not good for you. You probably need something else and you probably need to get that dose reduced because that's going to start causing you problems in the long term." The class action is seeking $10 million in damages and $100 per person in punitive damages. The lawsuit is being led by attorneys Karim Renno and Michael Vathilakis of Renno Vathilakis Inc. [GN] JZJ SERVICES: Faces Macaluso Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXA MACALUSO, on behalf of herself, and those similarly situated v. JZJ SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SPA JOLIE, and JODI PERSKIN KAUFFMAN jointly and severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-01407 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law since February 18, 2017. Alexa Macaluso is a licensed manicurist with over two decades experience. She was employed by the Defendants from May 2006 to November 7, 2019. Spa Jolie is a laser spa that specializes in slimming and anti-aging for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC Whitehall Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: rjulien@mmsjlaw.com KELLOGG CO: Sued Over Vanilla Flavoring In Granola -------------------------------------------------- David Beasley, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a class action lawsuit claims cereal maker Kellogg misleads consumers that one of its products is flavored exclusively with vanilla beans. "Bear Naked Granola Fit V'nilla Almond is misleading because it is marketed as if it is flavored with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans (when it is not)," the lawsuit states. The product is placed next to other granola products "that actually are flavored with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans," the suit says. "Through false and deceptive packaging and advertising, Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that its product is made with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans when the ingredient list reveals otherwise." Vanilla is the second-most expensive flavoring ingredient after saffron, according to the suit, and is frequently "subject to adulteration, extension and imitation." The suit, filed Dec. 20, 2019, seeks unspecified damages. The defendant has removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plantiffs are represented by Devon K. Roepcke and Eric A. Laguardia. [GN] KENOSHA, WI: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in Olrich Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JASON ALLEN OLRICH v. KENOSHA COUNTY, et al., Case No. 18-cv-1980-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Pamela Pepper entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee; 2. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's amended motion to appoint counsel; 3. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class; 4. denying Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint; 5. denying Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases; and 6. denying as moot the plaintiff’s motion to stay screening until he files an amended complaint. 7. declaring Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim; and 8. directing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this order. If the plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so in time for the court to receive it by the end of the day on April 10, 2020. If the court does not receive the amended complaint by the end of the day on April 10, 2020, the court will dismiss this case based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim in his original complaint and will issue him a strike as required by 28 U.S.C. Kenosha County is a county in the southeastern corner of the U.S. state of Wisconsin. Its population in 2018 was estimated to be 169,290, making it the eighth most populous county in Wisconsin.[CC] KICKOFF USA: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kickoff USA, Inc. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Kickoff USA, Inc. doing business as: Sundek, Case No. 1:20-cv-02245 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kickoff USA, Inc. is a business categorized under bathing suits and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com KOMAR LAYERING: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Komar Layering, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Komar Layering, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02251 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Komar designs, sources, manufactures and distributes apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com KRUGER FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pho Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- SARANNY PHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRUGER FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2020-2099 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Pho was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid and non-exempt employee. Kruger Foods, Inc. provides food products. The Company offers pickles, peppers, mayonnaise and dressing, pumpables, and refrigerated products. Kruger Foods operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Philip Song, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 LOCK AND KEY: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lock and Key Remedies, Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Lock and Key Remedies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02280 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lock & Key Remedies is a health and wellness company, providing affordable hemp-based formulations of PhytoCannabinoids and natural Terpenes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com LORAIN, OH: App. Court Reverses Class Certification in Winrod Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTINE WINROD, et al. Appellees, v. THE CITY OF LORAIN, Appellant, Case No. 19CA011503 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Ninth District, Lorain County, reversed the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's decision. Plaintiffs Winrod and Lynda Ashley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued Lorain City, challenging the sanitary sewer rates and fees the City imposed on non-City residents. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Civil Rules 23(A) and 23(B)(3), requesting that the trial court certify the following class and subclass: All ratepayers who were charged sanitary sewer rates for premises located outside the Lorain city limits pursuant to Lorain Codified Ordinance 913.305 since May 7, 2012. All ratepayers who were charged sanitary sewer rates for premises located in the Hidden Valley subdivision in Amherst Township, Ohio pursuant to Lorain Codified Ordinance 913.305 since May 7, 2012. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The City now appeals that decision, raising one assignment of error for the Appellate Court's review. In its assignment of error, the City argues that the trial court erred by granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its merit brief, the City argues that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the prerequisites of class certification by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellate Court agrees. It holds that while the trial court's failure to explicitly address the membership requirement may not amount to an abuse of discretion, its failure to do so, combined with its naming of a deceased person as a class representative and the fact that the City specifically challenged whether the Plaintiffs established that they were members of the putative class, suggests that the trial court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis into whether the Plaintiffs satisfied the prerequisites of class certification. As a result, the Appellate Court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In light of that conclusion, the Appellate Court need not address the City's remaining arguments. For these reasons, the Appellate Court sustained the City's assignment of error. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's decision. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Decision is available at https://is.gd/dPve9v from Leagle.com. RICHARD D. PANZA -- RPanza@WickensLaw.com -- WILLIAM F. KOLIS, JR., and MALORIE A. ALVERSON, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant. TODD M. RASKIN -- traskin@mrrlaw.com -- Attorney at Law, for Appellant. PATRICK D. RILEY -- priley@prileylaw.com -- Attorney at Law, for Appellant. DENNIS M. O'TOOLE -- dotoole@omdplaw.com -- MATTHEW A. DOOLEY, STEPHEN M. BOSAK, JR. and PATRICK M. WARD, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees. LOWE'S COMPANIES: Belaski Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JENNIFER BELASKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00343 (D. Conn., March 13, 2020) arises from Defendants' willful violations of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and Connecticut's wage collection statutes. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Front End Department Manager from September 2013 until January 2017, as a Service Manager from January 2017 until January 2019, and as a Department Supervisor from January 2019 until June 2019. She was compensated by Defendant pursuant to an hourly wage and typically worked a rotating schedule consisting of five to six days and up to 40 or more hours each week. Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with Defendants, she was required by Defendants to work a substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime, as part of her job as an Hourly Manager. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to properly compensate hourly Managers: -- for all time worked, including their overtime hours, during each day and during each workweek; -- from the time that they arrive to work and start performing the perimeter check of the premises until the time that they clock into the Kronos timekeeping system takes substantial time of about 10 to 15 minutes per shift; -- for the meal periods on which they are required to read and respond to work-related smartphone communications during their unpaid meal breaksl; -- for off-the-clock work and smartphone communications after their shifts which directly benefits Defendants. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC are American retail companies specializing in home improvement. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Newman, Esq. BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP 747 Stafford Avenue Bristol, CT 06010 Tel: (860)583-5200 Fax: (860)589-5790 - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248)355-0300 Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Nelson Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under MMWL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Nelson and Jeremy West, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00190-RK (W.D. Mo., March 13, 2020), arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law relating to unpaid wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain and have maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiffs for time spent reading and responding to work related smartphone communications during non-work hours, including during unpaid meal periods, or for being required to report early for work to perform a perimeter check of the premises by slowly driving their vehicles around the outer perimeter of the retail store to ensure that nothing out of the ordinary has occurred overnight and if so, taking appropriate actions. The Plaintiffs also allege that they perform other pre- and post-shift work tasks that go uncompensated. The Plaintiffs and Hourly Managers spend significant time performing this off-the-clock work, but the Defendants do not compensate them for it. Because much of this time qualifies as overtime within the meaning of applicable state laws, the Plaintiffs and Hourly Managers are owed overtime pay for this uncompensated, off-the-clock work, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Hourly Managers in the state of Missouri. The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home improvement.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-221-7100 Email: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Elaina S. Bailey, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ebailey@sommerspc.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Anderson et al Say --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, RONALD ANDERSON and ANNA MARIA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-189-GNS (W.D. Ky., March 13, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants -- Anderson as a Service Manager at Richmond Lowe's from January 2017 until October 2017 and Cruz as a Front End Support at Elizabethtown Lowe's from June 2018 until May 2019. Both were compensated pursuant to an hourly wage and typically worked a rotating schedule consisting of five to six days and up to 40 or more hours each week, resulting in overtime hours on a weekly basis. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to properly compensate Hourly Managers: -- for all time worked, including their overtime hours, during each day and during each workweek; -- from the time that they arrive to work and start performing the perimeter check of the premises until the time that they clock into the Kronos timekeeping system takes substantial time of about 10 to 15 minutes per shift; -- for the meal periods on which they are required to read and respond to work-related smartphone communications during their unpaid meal breaks; and -- for off-the-clock work and smartphone communications after their shifts which directly benefits Defendants. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC are American retails companies specializing in home improvement. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles W. Miller, Esq. CHARLES W. MILLER & ASSOCIATES Waterfront Plaza, Suite 2104 325 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Tel: (502)583-2300 Email: cmiller@cwmassociates.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248)355-0300 Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com LOWE'S HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Bartholomew Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIANE BARTHOLOMEW and MICHAEL SHERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-695-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part Lowe's' Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) granted Bartholomew's Motion for Substitution of the proper Lowe's entity. The Bartholomew/Sherry lawsuit is an age discrimination case. Bartholomew works at a Lowe's store as a sales associate. At one time, Lowe's paid sales associates the commissions that it received from manufacturers for selling their products. So those employees earned an hourly wage plus spiffs. Typically, the people hired as sales associates were over 40 -- the age federal law considers an employee an older worker. In late 2011, Lowe's announced it would stop paying spiffs to sales associates. When it ended spiff pay in 2012, Lowe's decided to help "offset the loss in variable pay" for sales associates. To accomplish that, Lowe's adopted a scheme to pay sales associates an adjusted amount equal to 50% of their spiffs earned in 2011. Certain Lowe's employees who earned spiffs, like Project Specialists Exteriors ("PSEs"), were exempt -- meaning Lowe's kept paying PSEs unadjusted spiffs. According to Lowe's, the point of ending spiff pay was to provide employees with stability. And the company told sales associates they would retain the Allowance arrangement as long as they remained hourly employees at a Lowe's store. Then, in August 2019, Lowe's announced it would end the Allowance. And in February 2020, all sales associates who receive an Allowance will no longer earn it. After learning of it, Bartholomew sued. The Complaint alleges two counts of age discrimination on a class-wide or collective basis. Lowe's moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Judge Chappell finds that there is nothing hypothetical about the case. Bartholomew challenges the decision to end the Allowance and seeks an injunction to prevent it. While the policy will not be effective for two more weeks, nothing suggests that will not happen (at which point the dispute would be indisputably ripe). So at this point, the Judge concludes nothing is likely to deprive Bartholomew of the alleged injury suffered by ending the Allowance. Lowe's moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. To the extent that Lowe's argues ending the Allowance is not actionable because it is a nondiscriminatory, neutral compensation decision applied equally to all sales associates, the issue is better tackled at summary judgment. Lowe's may well have some defense to end the Allowance, like a reasonable factor other than age. But none of the cases Lowe's relies on were decided on a motion to dismiss, when the Court must accept the allegations as true. Finally, the Complaint alleges disparate treatment, and Lowe's moves to dismiss. On this basis, Judge Chappell agrees and dismisses without prejudice. The Judge finds that the Complaint does not allege enough factual matter to support a plausible inference Lowe's intentionally discriminated against Bartholomew and older sales associates by ending the Allowance. So Count 2 is dismissed. Yet the Judge rejects Lowe's argument the dismissal should be with prejudice. The Judge cannot say that amendment would be futile, so Bartholomew will get the requested chance to amend. Accordingly, Judge Chappell granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Count 2 of the Complaint is dimissed without prejudice. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution. The Plaintiffs was granted leave so they can file an amended complaint consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/yAKMRd from Leagle.com. Michael Sherry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Salas -- jp@salaslawfirmpa.com -- Salas Law Firm & Michael George Green, II -- michael@salaslawfirmpa.com -- Salas Law Firm, P.A. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, also known as Lowe's Home Improvement, Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce M. Steen -- bsteen@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Cameron G. Kynes -- ckynes@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP & Elena D. Marcuss -- emarcuss@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice. MACE SECURITY: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mace Security International, Inc. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mace Security International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01384-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mace is a manufacturer of personal safety and security products, such as the widely recognized Mace Pepper Spray as well as stun guns, personal alarms, and products for the law enforcement and private security markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MASON COMPANIES: Sued by Williams in S.D.N.Y. for ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mason Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02308 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mason Companies is a family-owned company that sells footwear, apparel and general merchandise nationwide via the internet and mail order catalogs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MCCLINTOCK INDUSTRIES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Pastore ------------------------------------------------------------ The case JONATHAN A. PASTORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MCCLINTOCK INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a RED AUTO PROTECTION, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00549 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2020) is a class action complaint by Plaintiff for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the unsolicited calls made to Plaintiff and the Class Members were for the purpose of marketing, advertising, and promoting Defendant's business and services to Plaintiff and to the Class Members with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system. In addition to using Plaintiff's residential cellular data, phone storage, and battery life, his privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted calls, forcing him to divert attention away from his work and other activities. McClintock Industries, Inc., d/b/a Red Auto Protection, is a California-based company that engages in the business of selling vehicle protection plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Lawson Sues in S.D. Indiana Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Chanelle Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00826-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Med-1 Solutions LLC provides billing assistance to the health care industry. The Company's services include collections, pre-collections, legal and judgement recovery, and billing assistance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MEDROBOTICS: Faces Spears et al. Suit over Unpaid Wages, Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICK SPEARS and EDWARD MCILHARGEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDROBOTICS; SAMUEL STRAFACE; and MARK PETERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10535 (D. Mass., March 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated employees their earned wages and benefits on or about January 24, 2020, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Spears and Mr. McIlhargey were employed by the Defendant as an engineer and as a quality control staff, respectively. Medrobotics is a manufacturer of medical robotics for use in surgical procedures with principal place of business in Raynham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilbert J. Schipani, Esq. Alexis Smith Hamdan, Esq. TEMPUS FUGIT LAW LLC 183 State Street, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 752-2371 MEIJER INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meijer, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Meijer, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02300 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meijer Inc. is an American supercenter chain throughout the Midwest, with its corporate headquarters in Walker, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MERCURY GENERAL: Court Awaits for Results of Mediation ------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Andre Birotte Jr., entered an order on March 11, 2020, denying outstanding motions without prejudice in two class action lawsuits against Mercury General. The two lawsuits are captioned as: MAO-MSO Recovery et al v. Mercury General, 2:17-cv-02525-AB (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.); and MAO-MSO Recovery et al v. Mercury General, 2:17-cv-02557-AB (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.). The Court, on its own motion, denies the Parties' outstanding motions without prejudice, pending the parties' mediation. The outstanding motions in Case No. 17-cv-02557, Dkt. Nos. 163, 164, 210, 218, 223, 224, are denied without prejudice. The outstanding motions in case number 17-cv-02525, Dkt. Nos. 157, 177, 178, 233, 243, 249, 251, 252, are denied without prejudice. Mercury General is a multiple-line insurance organization offering personal automobile, homeowners, renters and business insurance. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Los Angeles, Mercury has assets in excess of $4 billion, employs 4,500 people and has more than 8,000 independent agents in 11 states.[CC] MISSOURI STAR: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Missouri Star Quilt Company, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Missouri Star Quilt Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02307 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Missouri Star Quilt Company provides an array of quilting supplies and a quilting channel on YouTube.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MITCHELL SIMONE: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitchell Simone, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mitchell Simone, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02249 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitchell Simone handles everything: ecommerce design & management, warehousing, shipping & returns, customer service, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com MIUS TAMIAMI: Longhini Sues in S.D. Florida Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minos Tamiami Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Minos Tamiami Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21113-BB (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minos Tamiami Ventures, LLC is a domestic for profit corporation in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Anthony Joseph Perez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GARCIA-MENOCAL & PREZ, P.L. 4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3 Miami, FL Phone: (305) 553-3464 Fax: (305) 553-3031 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com ajperezlaw@gmail.com MONSANTO CO: Initial Approval of Nieves Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ARMANDO NIEVES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, and ROBERTO PEREZ-PEREZ, individually, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement Agreement) between Plaintiffs and Defendants Monsanto Company; 2. conditionally approving the settlement class, and appointing settlement class counsel and class representative, on behalf of: "all persons who were recruited and employed by Farm Labor Contractor Benito Vasquez (also known as B&F Detasseling), and who performed corn detasseling, rouging, and/or related work on farms owned or otherwise controlled by Monsanto Company in Illinois between 2011 and 2015" 3. approving the proposed direct class notice plan and the class notice and claim form; and 4 scheduling a final approval hearing. The Plaintiffs allege claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and a breach of contract claim under Illinois common law. All Plaintiffs and proposed class members were recruited and employed by the Farm Labor Contractor Benito Vasquez. The Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid as agreed upon for their work. Specifically, they claim that their detasseling work was not compensated as promised in the AWPA disclosure statement provided to workers as required by law. They also claim that they failed to receive proper notice of the terms of their employment, the pay they would receive, and the basis for their pay. For these violations, Plaintiffs sought damages for violations of the AWPA and for breach of contract; AWPA provides for damages of up to $500 per violation per worker, or actual damages, whichever is greater. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired by Bayer as part of its crop science division.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC www.KakalecLaw.com 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 195 Montague Street, 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com - and - Teresa Hendricks, Esq. MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT INC. 1104 Fuller Ave. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371 Telephone: (616) 454-5055 E-mail: thenricks@migrantlegalaid.com - and - Curtis C. Warner, Esq. 5 E. Market St. Ste. 250 Coring, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal MONSTER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Williams Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monster, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monster, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02306 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Monster Inc. offers online employment solutions. The Company offers tools including searchable job postings, a resume database, career management content, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MOTORSPORT AFTERMARKET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motorsport Aftermarket Group, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Motorsport Aftermarket Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02305 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Motorsport Aftermarket Group (MAG) is a manufacturer and distributor of aftermarket products for the powersports industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MOVING SOLUTIONS: Approval of Settlement for Final Cert. Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER FOR GARY MIDDLE RIDER, an individual, ROBERT GARZA, an individual ALBERT ARELLANO, an individual, JOSE DON CORONADO, an individual, v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, a California Corporation MANAGED FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC a California Limited Liability Company and CHARTWELL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC, a New York Corporation licensed to do business in California, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order approving the settlement for final certification. In this case the Plaintiffs' counsel is requesting service awards for each Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 per person. Courts routinely approve incentive awards to compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provide and the risks they incurred during the course of the class action litigation Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 490 (E.D. 12 Cal. 2010). According to the Plaintiffs' counsel, $5,000 seems like an adequate sum considering the Plaintiffs the amount of time the Plaintiffs spent. Barbara Middle Rider, the lead Plaintiff's widow traveled to California from Montana to participate in the mediation. Gary Middle Rider provided Class Counsel with an extensive list of employees that was used to obtain new Plaintiffs after Gary passed away. Don Coronado took time away from caring for his dying wife to attend the mediation and participate in meetings with his attorney. The Class Representatives were all working people who missed work to make themselves available for this litigation. Class Counsel asserts that $5,000 is a reasonable sum to award to them.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1 ST St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 466-5845 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 - and - Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq. BOOKE & AJLOUNY 606 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-7000 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com MYLAN NV: Must Face Certified Epipen Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for West Law News reports that a federal judge said plaintiffs suing Mylan NV for engaging in an allegedly unlawful scheme to squelch competition and sharply raise prices for its EpiPen allergy treatment can proceed as a class. U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree in Kansas City, Kansas, certified two classes of EpiPen purchasers to pursue racketeering and state antitrust claims against Mylan and Pfizer Inc, which makes EpiPens for Mylan to market. [GN] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Property Reassessment Suit OK'd as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Adams, writing for Garden City Life, reports that Nassau County Executive Laura Curran's administration initiated the reassessment process after years of frozen rolls under Edward Mangano. A New York State Supreme Court judge recently ruled that a lawsuit filed by a group of Nassau residents against the county, its Department of Assessment (DOA) and Nassau County Executive Laura Curran over the countywide property reassessment process may move forward as a class action. The suit, filed by Port Washington resident and real estate lawyer Eric Berliner at the end of April 2019, contends the formula the county uses to assess the value of residential properties is overly vague in a way that deprives homeowners of information they need to fairly grieve their assessments. The court ruled that the suit impacted enough people in the county that it could proceed as a class action on behalf of the owners of all 400,000 Class One single-family homes in the county, 260,000 of which have already filed assessment grievances. "The lawsuit will now proceed on behalf of all residential homeowners in Nassau County, and could impact approximately 400,000 homes," prosecuting attorney Scott Mollen said of the ruling. "We now represent not just the named plaintiffs, but all Nassau County homeowners." The suit contends the county rushed the reassessment process with an understaffed DOA and a lack of transparency, and is seeking to receive injunctions stalling the temporary assessment rolls for 2020-21, preventing the county from collecting property taxes based on the 2018 reassessment and compensating homeowners who were overassessed. The county released the formula the DOA used to reassess property values in compliance with a court order after being sued by Lynbrook resident Dennis Duffy back in April. The algorithm's release concluded Duffy's suit, but caused Berliner to file his own lawsuit against the county. Berliner and his fellow plaintiffs contend the formula, a 239-page file of computer code that is largely indecipherable to laypeople, leaves many of its factors vague. Different markets weigh modifying factors like heating systems and location differently from one another. For example, in Market 3, an area that includes much of northern Nassau, having a hot water heater results in a tax deduction of about 4.5 percent compared to its absence, while in Market 2, having or not having a hot water heater does not factor into the assessment formula at all. Likewise, a central air system in a Market 2 house will result in a slight increase in valuation (a 1.0491 multiplier, to be exact) while having central air does not modify the formula in Market 3. The divisions within the formula simply reflect the realities of the markets within the county, Justine DeGiglio, senior communications advisor for the county executive, said in an email statement back in July. "Each market area has different market influences impacting real estate," DeGiglio wrote. "This is one of the considerations in separating them out in the first place. Different market influences move in different ways and have different impacts on value. For example, in certain areas, the size of the lot may be very important and command a much higher rate. In other areas, the amount of land each residence sits on may not be as important." Nassau County assessment rolls had been frozen for eight years under former Republican county executive Edward Mangano, leaving property owners without updated valuations on their homes and skewing the tax burden in favor of those who filed grievances during that time. Curran unfroze the rolls and pushed forward a countywide reassessment with the help of county assessor David Moog, which, despite independent analysis concluding the new system is fair to county homeowners as a whole, has led to political infighting and inquiries from Nassau residents about the methodology behind the process. County executive spokesperson Christine Geed said the county has made it clear that the DOA's formula is just one element of many in the reassessment process. While many homeowners are seeing considerable increases in their assessments, the executive's camp calls that jump a consequence of the decade-long freeze in the assessment roll. "The question I ask people is 'if you put your house on the market, what do you really think it's going to sell for?'," Geed said. "You're telling me that the county inappropriately doubled the assessment value of your home, but if I want to give you a check for that previous value the first thing they're going to say is'‘no, my house is worth three times that amount.' That's exactly what the county just got finished doing." [GN] NAT'L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL: Bartolomei Sues over Political Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ LESLIE BARTOLOMEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, and WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00271-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited political messages on his cellular telephone (501-XXX-X856) on or about January 8, 2020 from Defendants' numbers 1-(866)201-1348 and 1-(833)676-4599 without providing prior express consent to receive such political messages. Also, an automated voice answered "the number you've dialed cannot be completed as dialed" when Plaintiff tried to dial the numbers, which is an indication that an "automatic telephone dialing system" was used by Defendants to send messages. Plaintiff and members of the Class claim that they were harmed and damaged by the acts of Defendants by incurring certain cellular telephone charges, reduced battery life, or reduced cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and invading their privacy. The complaint seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury. National Republican Congressional Committee works to elect Republicans to the United States House of Representatives. WinRed Technical Services LLC is the National Republican Party's "fundraising apparatus by creating a centralized, one-stop shop for online Republican political donations." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (877)206-4741 Fax: (866)633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Jose M. Bautista, Esq. BAUTISTA LEROY, LLC 3770 Broadway Blvd., Second Floor Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel: (816)221-0382 Fax: (800)816-7060 Email: jose@bautistaleroy.com - and - Justin Zachary, Esq. DENTON & ZACHARY, LLC 600 S. German Lane, Ste. 101 Conway, AR 72034 Tel: (501)358-4999 Fax: (501)358-4737 Email: justin@dentonandzachary.com NATIONAL STUDENT: Deal in Robinson FCRA Suit Gets Preliminary OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL STUDENT CLEARINGHOUSE, Defendant, Civil Matter No. 1:19-CV-10749-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. Robinson and Defendant National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to the proposed Settlement Class and a hearing, to settle the Action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement lodged with the Court. The Court has reviewed the Agreement, as well as the files, records and proceedings to date in the matter. Based on the Court's review of the Agreement and all of the files, records and proceedings therein, Judge Saylor concludes that the Agreement and settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: Those individuals who, from April 18, 2014 to Aug. 9, 2019, ordered a Degree Verification or Dates of Attendance service from NSC for the indicated purpose of Verifying my own Record(s) and who paid NSC more for that service than allowed at the time by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Court appointed (i) Robinson is designated as class representative, and (ii) Stuart Rossman of the National Consumer Law Center, Brian Shearer of Justice Catalyst Law and James A. Francis of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. as class counsel. The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 7, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt out by sending a written request to the Settlement Administrator by May 6, 2020. Not later than June 5, 2020, the Settlement Administrator will file a declaration with the Court that lists all of the opt-outs received. In order to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing, the person must make any objection in writing and mail it to the counsel for the parties and the clerk of the Court not later than May 6, 2020. All proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the Settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Notice Order is available at https://is.gd/HU9VHJ from Leagle.com. James Robinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Elga, Justice Catalyst Law, Brian Shearer, Justice Catalyst Law, pro hac vice, James A. Francis, FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C., pro hac vice, Joanna K. Darcus, National Consumer Law Center, pro hac vice, John Soumilas, FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C., pro hac vice, Persis S. Yu, National Consumer Law Center & Stuart T. Rossman -- srossman@nclc.org -- National Consumer Law Center. National Student Clearinghouse, Defendant, represented by Lisa M. Simonetti -- simonettil@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Paul T. Fox -- foxp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig PC, pro hac vice & David G. Thomas -- thomasda@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP. NEW YORK, NY: App. Court Reverses Dismissal of Diamond's NYCHA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, A & A'SEELAH DIAMOND, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Amicus Curiae, Case No. 10810, 153312/18, 8503 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, reversed the judgment of Judge Carol R. Edmead of the New York County Supreme Court, entered on Feb. 28, 2019, dismissing the cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, without prejudice, and dismissing the cause of action for injunctive relief. The Appellate Court unanimously reversed without costs and vacated the February 2019 Judgment. The Appellate Court reinstated the cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the "damages class." The appeal from order, entered Feb. 7, 2019, was unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. The Appellate Court finds that the motion court correctly concluded that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs conflicted with the administrative agreement, which empowered a Monitor to oversee and work with NYCHA and coordinate and consult with HUD and the US Attorney, to correct deficiencies in NYCHA's facilities. Requiring NYCHA to devise and implement a plan to remediate the heat and hot water problems and report to plaintiffs would interfere with the powers and discretion of the Monitor to direct and oversee NYCHA's compliance with HUD regulations. The Plaintiffs and amicus assert that there is no actual conflict between the proposed injunctive relief and the administrative agreement because the goals are the same. However, even if the goals of the federal and state law are the same, a state law may be preempted if it interferes with the methods by which the federal statute was designed to reach that goal. The Appellate Court finds that the administrative agreement provided a specific structure and method for reaching the goal of compliance with health and safety requirements. The injunctive relief sought by the class would interfere with the powers of the Monitor and the program mandated by the administrative agreement. The Plaintiffs and amicus assert that paragraph 105 of the administrative agreement expressly preserved their right to bring the instant action. Paragraph 105 stated that the administrative agreement did not limit the rights of non-parties to bring claims against NYCHA, except as otherwise provided by law. The law relating to preemption provides otherwise. However, the motion court erred in declining to certify the damages class in that common questions of law and fact predominate in connection with the Plaintiffs' damages and declaratory judgment claims, the Appellate Court finds. Commonality cannot be determined by an mechanical test, and fact questions pertaining to individual class members may remain after resolution of common questions, but it is not fatal to class action status. The class action statute should be liberally construed. In order to prove a claim for breach of the warranty of habitability, the Plaintiffs must show the extensiveness of the breach, the manner in which it affected the health, welfare or safety of the tenants, and the measures taken by the landlord to alleviate the violation. NYCHA conceded that 80% of its housing units experienced heat and/or hot water outages during the relevant period, which demonstrates that the problems that affected each class member were system-wide. Thus, much of the proof will likely concern NYCHA's overall deficiencies, rather than the breakdown of individual heating systems in individual buildings. The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not prevent class certification as long as common issues of liability predominate. In any event, the heating systems that failed served multiple housing units, and proof of NYCHA's efforts to repair each system will be common to numerous class members. In order to address any concerns with the size or disparity of the class, the motion court can designate subclasses consisting of tenants of a particular NYCHA complex, development or building. Moreover, the class action treatment is the most efficient method for adjudicating the claims of the class members who lack the resources to bring individual actions for the small recovery they might obtain. The Appellate Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to file amicus curiae brief. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/C1x3h2 from Leagle.com. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York (Shaimaa Hussein -- shussein@willkie.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Miriam Skolnik -- MSkolnik@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of counsel), for respondents. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Blair J. Greenwald of counsel), for amicus curiae. NORTHWOOD ASSET: Faces McGlynn FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NORTHWOOD ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joel Z. McGlynn, for himself and others similarly situated v. NORTHWOOD ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, ANDREW D. FANELLI, JASON COLLINS, III, KELLY KENNUTH, Case No. 5:20-cv-01409-JMG (E.D. Pa., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northwood Asset Management Group, LLC is a full service collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Salvin, Esq. PHILA DEBT CLINIC & CONSUMER LAW CENTER Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1573 Phone: (215) 300-2388 Email: robert.salvin@outlook.com OAK STREET HEALTH: Fails to Pay Regular and OT Wages, Pratt Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lareka Pratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAK STREET HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01777 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2020), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff all earned regular and overtime pay for all time worked. The Defendant knowingly required and/or permitted the Plaintiff to perform unpaid work before and after the start and end times of their shifts, says the complaint. The amount of uncompensated time the Plaintiff spend or have spent on these required and unpaid work activities averages approximately 10 minutes per day and sometimes more per person. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 2018 to April 2019 as an hourly, non-exempt, telephone-dedicated employee. The Defendant manages, controls and operates customer service call centers within this judicial district and throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-726-3400 - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-0575 OPTUM SERVICES: Fails To Pay Proper Wages, Auguste Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- WINZA AUGUSTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTUM SERVICES, INC. dba UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01131040-CU-OE-CJC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Auguste was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated owns and manages organized health systems in the United States and internationally. The Company provides employers products and resources to plan and administer employee benefit programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com roman@yeremianlaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 652-2242 E-mail: whaines@uelg.com ORACLE INC: To Pay $12 Million to Settle ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------- James Comtois, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that Oracle Corp. agreed to pay $12 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed against the firm for allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties in managing its $16.5 billion 401(k) plan. The suit, filed in 2016, alleged that Redwood City, Calif.-based Oracle caused participants of its 401(k) savings and investment plan "to pay unreasonable record-keeping and administrative fees" to its record keeper, Fidelity Management Trust Co. The class action also alleged that the plan sponsor retained at least three investment options - Artisan Partners' Artisan Small Cap Value Fund, TCM Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund and Pacific Investment Management Co.'s PIMCO Inflation Response Multi-Asset Fund - that "consistently underperformed their designated benchmarks ... (and) other funds of the same investment style, charged excessive fees, and paid revenue sharing to Fidelity far beyond a reasonable rate for the services provided." The suit also accused Oracle of failing to monitor the performance of the other plan fiduciaries. "We're pleased that the Oracle employees and retirees will not only receive compensation for the past, but also that they will have an improved plan going forward, enabling them to build their retirement assets," said Jerome Schlichter, founding and managing partner of Schlichter Bogard & Denton and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, in an email. "The record keeper also will not be able to use the participants' confidential personal and financial information to market and sell non-plan services and products." [GN] OXO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against XO International, Inc. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. XO International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01387-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com PAPER STORE: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Paper Store, LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Paper Store, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02298 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Paper Store is an American retail company based in Acton, Massachusetts that owns and operates approximately 80 specialty gift stores across the northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com PENNYMAC LOAN: Rozanski Consumer Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Walter Rozanski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, Case No. 2083CV00084, was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Plymouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 13, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10518-MPK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, is an American residential mortgage company headquartered in Westlake Village, California, and is the principal mortgage banking subsidiary of PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Himelfarb, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 265 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 449-6500 Fax: (617) 607-9200 Email: dhimelfarb@mccarter.com PERFORMANCE APPAREL: Nixon Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performance Apparel Corp. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Performance Apparel Corp., ADR Provider, Case No. 1:20-cv-02250 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Performance Apparel makes base layer apparel for skiers, hikers, climbers, cyclists, and other outdoorsy types, using fabrics that help to maintain body temperature, manage moisture, and provide antimicrobial protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: Class Cert. Bid in Hunt Suit Wins Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Antwoin Hunt, et al. v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11086, (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval is granted for reasons set forth in the motion and discussed at the hearing. Personnel Staffing provides staffing services. The company offers staffing for clerical and industrial positions.[CC] PETER THOMAS ROTH: Court Denies Certification in Miller Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KARI MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-00698 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify four classes. Defendants Peter Thomas Roth, Designs, Global, and Labs, LLC ("PTR Labs") market specialty skincare products. Two of their product lines, the Water Drench and Rose Stem Cell, are at issue. The Water Drench Products contain hyaluronic acid which, as PTR Labs advertises, attracts and retains up to one thousand times its weight in water from moisture in the atmosphere. PTR Labs also advertise the Rose Stem Cell line with the buzzwords "bio repair," "reparative," "rejuvenates," and "regenerates." Plaintiff Miller reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Water Drench product after hearing an ad proclaiming the hyaluronic acid's exceptional water retention, believing the product a superior skin hydrator. Plaintiff Samantha Paulson reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Rose Stem Cell Gel Mask after seeing words like "bio repair," "rejuvenates," and "regenerates," concluding the product might help the appearance of a facial scar. The Plaintiffs contend both ads are false or misleading and filed suit under, among others, California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs seek to certify four classes, two sets for each of the challenged ads: (1) a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive and declaratory relief; and (2) a Rule 23(c)(4) class to find liability in support of later litigation regarding monetary relief. Plaintiff Miller seeks to lead the two classes based upon the Water Drench products: Water Drench Class - All purchasers of the Water Drench Products in California since Dec. 28, 2014. Plaintiff Paulson also seeks to lead the two classes based upon the Rose Stem Cell Products: Rose Stem Cell Class - All purchasers of the Rose Stem Cell Products California since Dec. 28, 2014. Judge Alsup holds that the Plaintiffs' false advertising claims will proceed individually against PTR Labs because they can obtain their requested liability determination and statewide injunction against PTR Labs' challenged ads without certifying a class. The need for a class to distribute restitution will be addressed if they succeed individually on the merits. Because class certification does not advance the Plaintiffs' claims for relief, Judge Alsup denied as moot without prejudice the motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/vQqOE0 from Leagle.com. Kari Miller, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated & Samantha Paulson, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony J. Patek, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio -- Kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Kyle Wayne Wilson & Todd M. Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, pro hac vice. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, Peter Thomas Roth Global, LLC & Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC, Defendants, represented by Brad Michael Scheller, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Herling -- djherling@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Nicole V. Ozeran -- NVOzeran@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. & Nada I. Shamonki -- nshamonki@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky Popeo. Kyle Wayne Wilson, Miscellaneous, pro se. PETSENSE INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petsense, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Petsense, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02304 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Petsense, Inc. provides consumer discretionary products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com PIZZA TO YOU: Class of Delivery Drivers Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Kirk Waters, et al., v. Pizza to You, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00372-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered an order: 1. denying Defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs of plaintiff's declarations; 2. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification, and granting Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs, on behalf of: "all current and former Jet's Pizza delivery drivers who worked at any location owned/operated by Defendants Pizza to You, L.L.C.; Pizza to You 2, L.L.C.; Pizza to You 3, L.L.C.; Pizza to You 4, LLC; Pizza to You 5, LLC; PRM Management LLC; Peter Marrocco; and/or Rosemary Marrocco within the three years prior to the filing of this class action complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter"; 3. conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' proposed Fair Labor Standards Act class as a collective action; 4. approving Plaintiff's proposed notices and methods of disseminating notice, and authorizing 90-day opt-in period; 5. approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Fair Labor Standards Act claim; and 6. directing Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential class members within 14 days of the Court's order.[CC] PLYMOUTH ROCK: Clough Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Acts ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT W. CLOUGH, II, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLYMOUTH ROCK ASSURANCE CORPORATION and AVENGE DIGITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00345 (D.N.H., March 17, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for sending multiple calls to residential telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call List which include Plaintiff and the proposed classes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This case involves a campaign by Avenge Digital, LLC, a telemarketer retained by Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation to market Plymouth Rock's services through the use of automated telemarketing calls in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the calls received by Plaintiff were sent for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services as it seeks to have him sign up for Plymouth Rock's services. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendants because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls. Plaintiff and the Class Members were also harmed by use of their cell phone battery and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate communications. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation is a Massachusetts-based insurance company. Avenge Digital, LLC is a Washington-based telemarketer of insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger B. Phillips, Esq. Phillips Law Office, PLLC 104 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 225-2767 Email: roger@phillipslawoffice.com – and – Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Broderick Law, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com – and – Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. Paronich Law, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com – and – Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW Law Group, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com – and – Matthew P. McCue, Esq. The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue 1 South A venue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Email: mmccue@massattomeys.net PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Burress Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as James Burress, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01149-ELR-CCB (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq. MASON LAW GROUP, LLC 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 920-8040 Fax: (404) 920-8039 Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com RETAILMENOT INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RETAILMENOT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02303-GBD (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.retailmenot.com/,and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. The Defendant is a coupon company that owns and operates its Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Prendergast Sues over Trading System Outage ---------------------------------------------------------------- COLIN PRENDERGAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01877-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for various claims including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately or properly equip itself technologically and systemically to maintain Plaintiff and class members' access to trading services. On March 2, 2020, Robinhood's systems crashed resulting in an outage of its trading platform through the morning of Tuesday, March 3, 2020. Plaintiff and class members were unable to exercise their option contracts, most of them were expiring, or trade them to capitalize on gains or to mitigate losses. Due to the Defendants' negligence and failure to maintain adequate infrastructure, they breached obligations owed to Plaintiff and class members which caused them substantial losses. Robinhood Financial, LLC is an online brokerage firm with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a securities broker-dealer with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. It offers people the ability to invest in stocks through its mobile application and website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Restis, Esq. THE RESTIS LAW FIRM P.C. 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 270-8383 E-mail: william@restislaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. Jeremy Nash, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com jnash@litedepalma.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Riggs Seeks Damages for March 2020 Outages --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Riggs, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01800-SK (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of California consumer protection laws. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who were unable to access and transact with their Robinhood accounts and incurred losses due to the inability to exercise or hedge expiring options, short positions, or limit orders during the period of March 2, 2020, through March 9, 2020. Unfortunately for Robinhood's customers, including the Plaintiff, Robinhood's trading systems completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020, and again on Monday, March 9, 2020, whereby Robinhood experienced a total outage of its operating systems, according to the complaint. Throughout the entire trading day, Robinhood's customers were prevented from making any securities trades through the firm's Web site, app, or call center. As a result of the Outages, the Plaintiff suffered financial losses due to being denied access to his Robinhood trading accounts and being unable to execute his transactions, and accordingly asserts these class action claims on behalf of himself and all others who suffered losses in their trading Robinhood accounts, specifically, as a result of their inability to place any securities trades during the Outages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Michael Riggs is a citizen of Pennsylvania and a user of Robinhood. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm founded in 2013 that touts itself as "a pioneer in commission-free investing."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 Email: byrd@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com SAMY'S CAMERA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samy's Camera, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Samy's Camera, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02302 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Samy's Camera Inc.'s line of business includes the retail sale of cameras, film, and other photographic supplies and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SAN DIEGO GAS: Buckhanon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ Noel Buckhanon, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation; SEMPRA ENERGY ENTERPRISES, a California corporation, SEMPRA, a California corporation, SEMPRA ENERGY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00013933-CU-OE-NC (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 13, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, and the Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former employees in California for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on the Defendants' alleged failures to pay all wages for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid wages and related relief through this class action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff currently resides in San Diego, California, and worked for the Defendants. San Diego Gas & Electric Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Phone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 Email: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone (562) 256-1047 Facsimile (562) 256-1006 Email: walter@whaines.com SANIMAX USA: Newport City Can't Intervene in Keech Torts Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied City of Newport's Motion to Intervene in the case, PATRICIA KEECH and DAVID NEWFIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANIMAX USA, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 18-0683 (JRT/HB) (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs brought the purported class action against Sanimax, a rendering and waste-oil processing facility located in the City of South Saint Paul. The Facility purifies agrifood industry by-products and turns them into animal feed, pet food, soap, and industrial chemicals. The Plaintiffs allege that their properties have been, and continue to be, physically invaded by noxious odors originating from the Facility. The Complaint includes claims under both nuisance and negligence theories. After the case was filed, Sanimax moved to strike the Complaint's class allegations. The Court concluded that it was too early to determine whether the Plaintiffs' claims could be proven on a class-wide basis" and denied the motion. It also noted, however, that it seemed unlikely that the Plaintiffs will be able to prove their nuisance claim on a class-wide basis. The parties thereafter convened on April 22, 2019 and were able to reach an agreement in principle following a day-long mediation. After several months of the parties working together on the settlement, the Plaintiffs' filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement on Aug. 9, 2019. The Court held a hearing on the proposed class settlement on Oct. 4, 2019. The Court, after finding the proposed settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate, granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval. At the hearing, Newport City, through City Attorney Frederic Knaak, indicated its interest in intervening in the case. The Court stated that it would consider the request once a motion to that effect was properly filed in the case. On Oct. 16, 2019, the City subsequently filed what it styled a Memorandum in Support of a Motion to Intervene. Sanimax filed a response in support of the City's motion. The Plaintiff's filed a response in opposition. Judge Tunheim finds that the parties have negotiated a proposed settlement, and the City seeks to intervene because it objects to the terms of that proposal. If he were to grant the City's Motion, it is likely that the proposed settlement would have to be set aside and the process begin again. The Judge also concluded the utility's interest was "the ultimate target" of the litigation. The settlement would not require the City to do anything, nor would it force the City to give up the right to do anything. Neither the City, nor its interests, are "the ultimate target" of the litigation. Finally, Judge Tunheim finds that the last-minute intervention would prejudice the parties who have already negotiated a preliminary settlement which the Court has allowed to move forward. Based on the foregoing, Judge Tunheim denied the City's Motion to Intervene. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/x0mNmO from Leagle.com. Patricia Keech, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & David Newfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon Thomas Brown -- bbrown@ldclassaction.com -- Liddle & Dubin PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Storms -- jeff@newmarkstorms.com -- Newmark Storms Dworak LLC & Laura L. Sheets -- info@LDclassaction.com -- Liddle & Dubin, P.C., pro hac vice. Frederic W. Knaak, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Sanimax USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Davis -- andrew.davis@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Bryant D. Tchida -- bryant.tchida@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Matthew J. Salzman -- matt.salzman@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice. SANOFI SA: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled GLORIMAR RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; CHATTEM INC.; CVS HEALTH CO.; and DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09527, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 7, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80203-RLR to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg and referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. Sanofi manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers drugs, generic medicines, food supplement, cosmetics, and medical devices such as cancer, cardiology, gynecology, and diabetes. Sanofi serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 837-7129 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher M. Strongosky, Esq. DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 835-6243 Facsimile: (212) 884-8543 SASOL LIMITED: Hagens Berman Alerts Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in Sasol ADRs (SSL) who have suffered significant losses to submit their losses now. A securities class action has been filed, and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Mar. 10, 2015 - Jan. 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 6, 2020 Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SSL Contact An Attorney Now: SSL@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Sasol Limited (SSL) Securities Class Action: According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose that; (1) Sasol conducted insufficient due diligence into and did not account for multiple issues with, Sasol's Lake Charles chemical plant ("LCCP"), as well as its true cost; (2) construction and operation of the LCCP was plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues; and (3) Sasol's top-level management exacerbated these issues by engaging in improper and unethical behavior concerning financial reporting for, and oversight of, the LCCP. Investors began to learn the truth through a series of disclosures, including on May 22, 2019, when Sasol abruptly raised the project's cost estimate by $1 billion and disclosed an internal review into the project's costs and construction schedule. The company admitted to weaknesses in the project's integrated controls, as well as significant additional concerns related to the project's forecasting process. Then, on Oct. 27, 2019, Sasol terminated its co-CEOs following an internal probe showing that the Lake Charles project management team acted inappropriately, lacked experience, and was overly focused on maintaining cost and schedule estimates instead of providing accurate information. Finally, on Jan. 13, 2020, Sasol disclosed an explosion and fire at its Lake Charles project's low-density polyethylene unit, requiring the company to shut down the unit. Each of these disclosures caused the price of Sasol ADRs to decline sharply. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Sasol misled investors about the Lake Charles project's cost, timing, and internal controls," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sasol should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email SSL@hbsslaw.com. Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers, and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news, visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein Phone: 844-916-0895 E-mail: SPR@hbsslaw.com [GN] SASOL LIMITED: Schall Announces Class Action Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Sasol Limited (NYSE:SSL) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. View photos Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 6, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Sasol failed to conduct appropriate due diligence on the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"). The LCCP was suffered from significant control weaknesses, delays, cost overruns, and technical glitches in its construction and operation. The Company's management made these problems even worse due to its improper and unethical oversight and financial reporting for the LCCP. The numerous problems with the LCCP were likely to negatively impact the Company's financial performance. Based on these facts the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Sasol, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contact: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. Tel: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/ [GN] SENTENCING COMMISSION: Bid to Certify Class in "Siraj" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Shahawar Matin Siraj, et al. v. United States Sentencing Commission, Case No. 1:19-cv-03375-ABJ (D. Colo.), the Court entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for an enlargement of time to file an amended complaint; 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class action and request for appointment of counsel; and 3. directing clerk of court to assign this case randomly to a judge for further proceedings. United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency of the judicial branch of the federal government of the United States. It is responsible for articulating the sentencing guidelines for the United States federal courts.[CC] SHOE SENSATION: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoe Sensation, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shoe Sensation, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02301 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shoe Sensation, Inc. retails footwear. The Company offers casual and athletic shoes for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SHRI GURU RAVIDAS: Sued by Society Members in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shri Guru Ravidas Welfare Society Inc., Monohar Kaler, Paramjit Lal , and a Class of 443 similarly situated members of Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc. v. Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc., an IRC 501(c)(3) Corporation, Ashok Mahi, Balvir Chauhan, Case No. 1:20-cv-01364-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y., March 13 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York Inc. is a corporation located in Woodside, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Curran, Esq. 98-120 Queens Boulevard, Suite #1-C Rego Park, NY 11374-4414 Phone: (718) 830-7741 Fax: (718) 830-9088 Email: mrc4law@yahoo.com SIMMONS BEDDING: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01132-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Simmons Bedding Company, LLC provides various bedding products. The Company designs, manufactures, distributes, and licenses broad range of mattresses, box springs, bed frames, and sleep accessories. Simmons Bedding serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC, Esq. 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SIX SIGMA HVAC: Miller Sues over Unlawful Employment Practice ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public as Private Attorneys General; Plaintiffs v. SIX SIGMA HVAC SERVICES, INC., a California business organization; and DOES 1 through 250, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV10318 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County, March 13, 2020) alleges that Defendants violate the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in or about June 2019 as a Service Technician whose duties include traveling to various locations to complete service requests on a daily basis. However, Plaintiff was terminated in or about September 2019 when he made complaints to Defendant regarding their wage and hour violations. Plaintiff claims that during the entirety of his employment, Defendants failed to compensate him for his travel time or the miles he drove between service locations during his workday; failed to provide him meal break and pay him a meal break premium; failed to pay him overtime at overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week. Six Sigma HVAC Services, Inc. provides numerous services for the improvement of equipment and system performance for indoor controlled environments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neama Rahmani, Esq. Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq. Rosie Zilifyan, Esq. WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213)927-3700 Fax: (213)927-3701 Emails: efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com rosie@westcoasttriallawyers.com SMARTPAK EQUINE: Williams Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smartpak Equine, LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Smartpak Equine, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02299 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smartpak Equine, LLC, retails animal supplies. The Company offers belts, riding boots, gloves, helmets, saddle paks, ropes, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SMITTYS SUPPLY: Zornes Seeks to Certify Tractor Fluid Buyers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY ZORNES, et al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02257-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons and other entities who purchased Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid and/or Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Kansas, at any point in time from December 1, 2013 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." Also excluded from the Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants' officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate family members, as well as the judicial officers assigned to this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate families.; and 2. designating Plaintiffs Terry Zornes, Adam Sevy, and George Bollin as Class Representatives and designating Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for negligence; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose; unjust enrichment; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and Kansas Consumer Practices Act violations. Smitty's manufactures and distributes lubricants and related products.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas V. Bender, Esq. Dirk Hubbard, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com dhubbard@hab-law.com - and - Bryan T. White, Esq. William Carr, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E- mail: bcarr@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com SOTHEBY'S INT'L: Cal. App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Teed Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five, issued an Opinion reversing the District Court's Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned RICHARD TEED, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A154707, (Cal. App.). Sotheby's International Realty, Inc. appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. In August 2017, respondants Richard Teed and William Butch Henry Haze filed a complaint against Sotheby's for declaratory relief and breach of contract. Teed and Haze each entered into an independent contractor agreement with Sotheby's, identifying Sotheby's as broker and Teed and Haze as associate-licensees. An addendum to the agreements required Sotheby's to provide Teed and Haze, at their expense, a 'policy of errors and omissions insurance' from a 'reputable carrier.' An April 2013 amendment to the agreement, while affecting the parties' commission split, did not extinguish Sotheby's obligation to provide the insurance. Sotheby's nonetheless failed to provide it. The complaint asserted that these and other actions breached the parties' agreements. At present, Sotheby's appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2.1. Sotheby's contends the court erred in concluding that it had waived its right to arbitrate, because its participation in the litigation and delay in seeking arbitration did not prejudice respondents or result in the adjudication of any arbitrable issue. In light of the strong public policy favoring arbitration and the repeated admonitions of the Supreme Court that waivers must be closely scrutinized, California Appellate Court agrees with Sotheby's and reverse the order. The Appellate Court looks into factors to consider in deciding whether there has been a waiver include: (1) whether the party's actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether "the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked' and the parties 'were well into preparation of a lawsuit' before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate;" (3) whether a party requested arbitration close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without requesting a stay; (5) "'whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place'"; and (6) whether the delay affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party. (St. Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1196; Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 980, 992.). * First Factor: Actions Inconsistent with the Right to Arbitrate Sotheby's was served with respondents' complaint in September 2017. For the next six months, it pursued the case in the trial court without a hint that it intended to seek arbitration of the matter. Sotheby's filed a motion to strike the complaint, a motion to seal the complaint, a motion to disqualify respondents' lawyer, a motion to strike the first amended complaint, and a case management statement that estimated the time for trial, proposed discovery deadlines, and omitted any mention of possible arbitration. These actions were inconsistent with an intent to compel arbitration. Sotheby's argues that mere participation in litigation does not constitute a waiver where, as here, there was no judicial determination of arbitrable issues or prejudice to the other party. * Second Factor: Substantial Invocation of Litigation Machinery The second St. Agnes factor is whether the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties were well into preparation of a lawsuit' before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate. Sotheby's essentially contends, however, that it did not substantially invoke the litigation machinery, pointing to waiver cases that involved more than preliminary motions, like Sotheby's motions to strike, or motions collateral to the merits, like its disqualification motion and motion to seal. Respondents counter that courts have found the litigation machinery invoked in the absence of dispositive motions or a 15-month delay. Citing Lounge-A-Round v. GCM Mills, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 190, 201, litigation machinery invoked where the case was pending nine months before any indication of an intent to arbitrate and no dispositive motions had been filed]. But even in Lounge-A-Round, the parties had unlike here engaged in discovery, suggesting a greater availment of the litigation process. * Third Factor: Delay Before Seeking a Stay The third St. Agnes factor is whether the party seeking to arbitrate had waited to request arbitration until close to the trial date, or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay. Here, since no trial date had been set, it cannot be said that Sotheby's waited until the eve of trial to seek arbitration. Sotheby's argument rings hollow, the Appellate Court notes. First, Sotheby's told a different tale to the trial court. At the hearing on the motion to compel, Sotheby's counsel represented that the delay in seeking to compel arbitration was due to Sotheby's desire to obtain a ruling on the motion to disqualify respondents' counsel, not the motion to seal. Second, even if Sotheby's thought it needed to obtain a ruling on the motion to seal before pursuing arbitration, it still could have disclosed its intention to arbitrate. It failed to do so, remaining mute about arbitration in its case management statement, which indicated that its only anticipated motion was for summary judgment or adjudication. Third, Sotheby's does not provide any legal authority for its proposition that the trial court would have lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to seal if the litigation was stayed for arbitration. While Sotheby's purported justification for its seven-month delay is thus unconvincing, it does not necessarily follow that the delay was so unreasonable as to constitute a waiver; the Appellate Court merely include it as a factor to be considered. * Fourth Factor: Counterclaim The fourth St. Agnes factor regards a defendant filing a counterclaim without seeking a stay. The trial court did not find this factor applied, and neither do the Appellate Court. * Fifth Factor: Important Intervening Steps The next factor is whether important intervening steps, e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration had taken place before seeking arbitration. The trial court found that this factor was met. The court did not specifically state why, but it noted elsewhere in its order that Sotheby's had submitted a discovery plan and a case management statement. Respondents defend the court's finding on this basis, but they cite no case for the proposition that merely proposing discovery deadlines as required in a case management statement constitutes an important intervening step within the meaning of St. Agnes. No written discovery was propounded by either party in this case, and no depositions were noticed. There was no indication that Sotheby's exploited judicial discovery procedures that would not have been available in arbitration. The fifth St. Agnes factor is not germane to this case, the Appellate Court opines. * Sixth Factor: Whether the Delay Misled, Affected or Prejudiced Respondents Lastly, the Appellate Court considers the issue of prejudice: did Sotheby's court filings and delay in bringing its motion to compel arbitration mislead, affect or prejudice respondents to the degree required to conclude that Sotheby's waived its right to compel arbitration? The trial court concluded that respondents were prejudiced, without specifying why. In their opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, respondents had argued that they incurred over $50,000 in legal fees and expenses, and they urge on appeal that these amounts deprived them of an inexpensive arbitration. The Appellate Court disagrees. In the first place, respondents would have incurred some of their attorney fees and costs even if Sotheby's had sought arbitration immediately, since the motion to seal and the motion to disqualify would have been pursued in some forum even if arbitration had been compelled at the outset. Because respondents do not quantify what portion of their attorney fees or costs they would not have incurred in arbitration, they fail to establish prejudice in this regard. In conclusion, the Appellate Court finds that respondents failed to meet their "heavy burden" of establishing a waiver. (St. Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1195.) The Appellate Court further concludes that substantial evidence did not support the trial court's findings of a substantial invocation of the litigation machinery, important intervening steps, or prejudice. Because waiver was the trial court's sole ground for denying Sotheby's motion to compel arbitration, and respondents made no other argument in opposition to the motion, the Appellate Court will reverse the order. In sum, the Appellate Court reversed the order denying Sotheby's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' December 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/u5ydbxz from Leagle.com. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in St. Lucie ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the matter styled IN RE SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 20-0197, the Defendants filed with the Supreme Court of Texas a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The original case is titled as St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al. The Real Party in Interest is stated as St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters Pension Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated. St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters Pension Trust is a pension fund.[BN] Defendants and/or Relators: Rathert, Terry L; CIBC World Markets Corp.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Gass, John D.; Southwestern Energy Company; Pew, Elliot; Stevens, Alan H.; Fifth Third Securities, Inc.; BB&T Capital Markets, a division of BB&T Securities, LLC; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Kehr, Catherine A; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Heikkinen Energy Securities, LLC; Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc.; Mourton, Kenneth R; Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; Robert W Baird & Co. Incorporated; Mueller, Stephen L.; Keybanc Capital Markets Inc.; Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; Kerley, Greg D.; Comerica Securities, Inc.; Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.; Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), now known as, MUFG Securities America, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc.; SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc.; Owen, R. Craig; RBS Securities Inc.; PNC Capital Markets LLC; Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.; Kunskraa, Vello A; Mizuho Securities USA LLC, f/k/a Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; Anders, Josh C., are represented by: J. Mark Little, Esq. Thomas R. Phillips, Esq. Wallis Mizell Hampton, Esq. Anthony J. Lucisano, Esq. Noelle Marie Reed, Esq. Aaron M. Streett, Esq. Ellen Bush Sessions, Esq. Charles R. Acker, Esq. SPECIALIZED LOAN: Ochondo Sues in Colo. Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. The case is styled as Barack Ochondo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00701 (D. Colo., March 13, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract for breach of contract. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS) operates as a financial company. The Company offers residential mortgages, as well as provides loan modification and planning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com STARS ON BRAND: Hambarsomian Suit Seeks $12,128 in Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tomik Hambarsomian, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. STARS ON BRAND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; ROBERT DEHNOUSHI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20GDCV00336 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' violations of the California Government Code, breach of employment contract and covenant of good faith and applicable Wage Order(s) issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff at least $12,128 in unpaid wages. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was promised by the Defendants to receive $7,000.00 per month. The Plaintiff was terminated by the Defendant without cause on January 7, 2020. The Plaintiff has yet to receive his August 2019 monthly salary of $7,000.00, November second half salary of $3,500.00, and for the first week of January 2020 for $1,628.00. The Plaintiff is owed at least $12,128.00. On February 4, 2020, the Plaintiff via correspondence sent a request for his personnel file and demanded immediate and full payment of the outstanding salary owed to the Plaintiff. No response was received, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Manager from August 5, 2019, through January 7, 2020. STARS ON BRAND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., is a California corporation doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vahe Hovanessian, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN 100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536 Glendale, CA 91203-2642 Phone: (818) 240-1333 Fax: (818) 240-1369 Email: vahe@vhlaw.com STRAWBERRY CREEK: Underpays Case Managers, House Developers ----------------------------------------------------------- LAMIA SCOTT; SHEANETTE LEONARD; CASONDRA SARGENT; and AHATI BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRAWBERRY CREEK OUTREACH CENTER, INC.; and DANIEL HILL, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-110 (N.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs Scott, Leonard and Sargent, were employed by the Defendants as case managers. The Plaintiff Brown as house developer. Strawberry Creek Outreach Center, Inc. provides home placement services for foster children. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Holleman, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975.5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net SUMMIT SPORTS: Court Dismisses Morgan's ADA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, JON R. MORGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT SPORTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 10912-LTS-SN (S.D. N.Y.). The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action, which alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has been or will be settled. The action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other Plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order. If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before the 30-day period expires. The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/tbhzcX from Leagle.com. Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shalom -- Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com -- Shalom Law, PLLC. Summit Sports LLC, Defendant, represented by Simon Robert Malko -- smalko@mmmlaw.com -- Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP & Stephen Manning Vaughn -- svaughn@mmmlaw.com -- Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Gibson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRI GIBSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00318 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and hourly wages, and meal and rest periods premiums. The Plaintiff and the class are present and former non-exempt, non-truck driver employees of the Defendants employed in California. Swift is a trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Rose, Esq. Manny M. Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Road, Ste. No. 2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@trontierlaweenter.com TD AMERITRADE: Filed False Registration Statement, Kent Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION; JOSEPH H. MOGLIA; STEVE BOYLE; LARRY BETTINO; ANN HAILEY; BRIAN LEVITT; KAREN E. MAIDMENT; BHARAT MASRANI; IRENE MILLER; MARK L. MITCHELL; WILBUR J. PREZZANO; TODD M. RICKETTS; ALLAN R. TESSLER; THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; and AMERICANO ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00388-UNA (D. Del., March 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to a proposed transaction announced on November 25, 2019 pursuant to the acquisition of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation by The Charles Schwab Corporation and Americano Acquisition Corp. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated stockholders, alleges that the registration statement omits material information with respect to the proposed transaction, which makes it false and misleading. The material information includes the financial projections of The Charles Schwab Corporation and Americano Acquisition Corp. and financial analyses performed with regards to the proposed transaction such as Discounted Equity Cash Flow Analysis/Net Present Value Analysis. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of investing services and education to client accounts and custodial services to registered investment advisors. It is headquartered at 200 South, 108th Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska. The Charles Schwab Corporation is a San Francisco, California-based financial services company. Americano Acquisition Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com TEK-COLLECT INC: Velazquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek-Collect Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Maria Velazquez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tek-Collect Incorporated, doing business as: Tekcollect, Inc., The Oral Surgery & Dental Implant Specialist of San Diego, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00487-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 14, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TekCollect provides business owners with comprehensive accounts receivable management, collections and customer retention services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW P RUNDQUIST 501 W Broadway, Suite A144 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 992-9148 Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com TRAEGER PELLET: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traeger Pellet Grills LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02295 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC retails cooking equipment. The Company offers a range of grills, pellets, sauces, rubs, shakes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TRAINA INTERACTIVE: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traina Interactive Corp. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Traina Interactive Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-01379-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Traina operates an online charitable marketplace in the fields of entertainment, sports, cooking, wine, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TRATTORIA TRE COLORI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montor Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN MONTOR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. TRATTORIA TRE COLORI, INC., d/b/a TRATTORIA TRECOLORI, MARCO GONZALEZ, VICTOR GONZALEZ, and FELIPE GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02362 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2020) is an action by Plaintiff, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, to recover from Defendants the unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime premiums, and unpaid spread of hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff and the class overtime premium at one and one half times their straight time base hourly rates for each hour worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Plaintiff's claims stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Further, with respect to employees who were tipped employees, Defendants were not entitled to take any tip credits under the FLSA, or to compensate FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at sub-minimum wage base hourly rates, because they failed to satisfy all statutory requirements for taking a tip credit. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a busser at Delmonico Gourmet Food Market until November 2017. Trattoria Tre Colori, Inc., d/b/a Trattoria Trecolori, is a New York City-based Italian restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Hagens Berman Alerts Investors to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in Tupperware Brands Corporation (NYSE: TUP) with significant losses to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed against the Company and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Jan. 30, 2019 – Feb. 24, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 27, 2020 Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TUP Contact An Attorney Now: TUP@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Tupperware (TUP) Securities Class Action: The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that Tupperware lacked effective internal control over its financial reporting, which led to Tupperware falsely reporting accounts payable and accrued liabilities for its Fuller Mexico beauty business. The Complaint also alleges that the Company provided inflated EPS guidance and concealed that, in light of its dire prospects, Tupperware would need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement. The truth emerged on Feb. 24, 2020, when Tupperware announced it would not timely file is 2019 annual report due to an ongoing internal investigation into the accounting for Fuller Mexico's accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Tupperware also revealed that it expected 2019 EPS to be $0.00-$0.34, representing an 800% year-over-year decline. Finally, based its grim 2020 outlook, the Company disclosed that it was forecasting the need to revise its $650 million Credit Agreement to avoid a debt acceleration. On this news, Tupperware shares crashed over 45% in a single trading day. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving that Tupperware inflated Fuller Mexico's accounts payable and concealed certain liabilities to appear more profitable," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of Tupperware and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Tupperware should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email TUP@hbsslaw.com. Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] UNION RAILROAD: Discriminates Against Pension Workers, Scott Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC., TRANSTAR, LLC, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION and SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-LPL (W.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act by discriminating against Pension Employees with the intention of interfering with the attainment of their benefits under the Carnegie Pension Fund. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated former employees of Union Railroad, who were targeted and improperly terminated due to their pension status. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' scheme included forcing certain Pension Employees to sign "last chance" agreements intended for employees with substance abuse problems, then manipulating Union Railroad's demerits policy to issue a disproportionate number of demerits to Pension Employees so they could be fired for cause. The Plaintiff alleges that he and approximately 90 similarly situated former Union Railroad employees were victims of a discriminatory pattern and practice designed to weed out Pension Employees in order to preserve the Carnegie Pension Fund. In May 2012, the Defendants, led by Union Railroad, Union Railroad General Superintendent, Joel Hudson; U.S. Steel, U.S. Steel General Manager, Jonathan Carnes, U.S. Steel Managing Director, Malisa Sommers; and Transtar, initiated a pretextual scheme to terminate Union Railroad employees, who were part of Defendant U.S. Steel's coveted employee pension benefit plan ("Carnegie Pension Fund"). Union Railroad is a Class III switching railroad located in Allegheny County in Western Pennsylvania. The company is owned by Transtar, Inc., which is itself a subsidiary of USS Corp, more popularly known as United States Steel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sol H. Weiss, Esq. Paola Pearson, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-735-1130 Facsimile: 215-875-7701 E-mail: sweiss@anapolweiss.com ppearson@anapolweiss.com - and - Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES U.S. Steel Tower, 10th Floor 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-391-2101 Facsimile: 412-391-7032 E-mail: ssugiura@edgarsnyder.com UNITED PARCEL: Murray et al. Alleges Discrimination, Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- FARI MURRAY, CARLOS PALAGOACHI, and WARREN PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated delivery drivers, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01427 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for employment race discrimination and unpaid minimum and overtime wages and benefits pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the New York Equal Pay Act. The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery drivers by the Defendant approximately between 2003 and 2018. United Parcels Service, Inc. is an owner and operator of a package delivery service business, located at 10401 Foster Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. It is also doing business as UPS. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq. 1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11236 Telephone: (347) 342-7432 UNITED STATES: ED Faces O'Neal Civil Rights Suit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Department of Education. The case is styled as James Devin O'Neal, and those similarly situated v. US Department of Education, Case No. 3:20-cv-00151-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., March 13 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Plaintiff James Devin O'Neal, of Ethel, Lousiana, appears pro se.[BN] VAPORDNA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vapordna. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vapordna, Case No. 1:20-cv-02294 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. VaporDNA is an online vape store offering an industry selection of electronic cigarettes, e-liquids, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com VERDE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Marshall Electricity Rates Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned RAY MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-1344 (JMV) (JBC). (D. N.J.). The putative class action alleges deceptive and bad faith practices that resulted in consumers paying more for electricity. Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on April 19, 2019 on behalf of all Verde variable rate electric plan customers in New Jersey within the applicable statute of limitations. The Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA or the Act); (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) violation of the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA). The Court previously dismissed the initial Complaint. Plaintiff Ray Marshall then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) Presently before the Court is Defendant Verde Energy USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). * The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count One) In dismissing the CFA claim from Plaintiff's initial Complaint, the Court concluded that the statement in the Terms of Service that rates may fluctuate with market conditions did not guarantee Plaintiff any savings. With respect to representations made outside of the Terms of Service, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff's reliance on a single statement about cost saving from the Welcome Letter was insufficient to allow for a claim under the CFA. Plaintiff now asserts further information throughout the FAC to demonstrate that Defendant's prices were higher than those of competing service providers. However, Plaintiff has not provided any new and persuasive facts as to how Defendant misrepresented to Plaintiff that its prices would be anything other than what they were. Plaintiff's most relevant new allegation is that the Defendant's website, lowcostpower.com, and statements contained within, served as material misrepresentations by the Defendant that its service would be low-cost and provide competitive rates. The key determination is whether these statements are puffery. While Plaintiff calls attention to the non-specific indication of competitive rates on Defendant's website, he neglects to consider that those descriptions of rates are limited to 100% renewable energy. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant's rates were not competitive with those of other renewable energy providers. He does note that Defendant's rates were much higher than those of PSE&G and wholesale costs, but with respect to overall competition, only generally notes that Defendant's rates were higher than those of all other ESCOs in 2017. Plaintiff would still need the presence of substantially aggravating circumstances to allow the CFA claim to succeed in the face of a written contract, the Court opines. However, Plaintiff cannot point to any such circumstance other than the fact that Defendant's rates, for a period of Plaintiff's multi-year business relationship with Defendant, were substantially higher than competitors' rates. Defendant's practices were not outside the norm of reasonable business practice. As the Court has found, Defendant did not promise Plaintiff any savings. Plaintiff has not alleged any new, sufficient facts indicating that Defendant made actionable misrepresentations as to the cost of its service or that Defendant's conduct involved substantially aggravating circumstances. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a claim under the CFA. Count One is dismissed, the Court rules. * Breach of Contract (Count Two) Verde contends that the breach of contract claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to plead that Verde breached any actual obligations under the Terms of Service. Plaintiff does not present any new facts that would allow him to plausibly plead a breach of the Agreement. Plaintiff's principal argument is that the Terms of Service required the Defendant to base its rates on market conditions, which the Defendant did not do, thereby breaching the contract. This argument fails because the Terms of Service did not require Defendant to base its rates on market conditions, the Court opines. Plaintiff's arguments regarding the ambiguity of the term market conditions are therefore not relevant. Still, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant failed to base its rates on market conditions, alleging only that Defendant's rates did not track PSE&G's rates or wholesale costs. Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for breach of contract. Count Two is dismissed, the Court rules. * The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count Three) Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim because the alleged wrongful conduct is encompassed by the Terms of Service and was not different from that which underlies the alleged breach of contract. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a component of every contract that requires both parties to a contract act in good faith, that is, they must adhere to community standards of decency, fairness, or reasonableness. In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that if Defendant did not breach the express terms of the Agreement, which gave Defendant unilateral discretion concerning Plaintiff's monthly rate, Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by arbitrarily and unreasonably exercising its discretion to adjust prices. Thus, it is possible that while Defendant did not breach an express term of the contract, Verde violated the implied covenant contained in the contract. Consequently, Count Three is appropriately construed as an alternative to Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's implied covenant claim must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to show that Verde acted in bad faith. Here, outside of a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, Plaintiff fails to provide any facts that permit the Court to infer that Verde acted in bad faith when adjusting Plaintiff's monthly rate. As discussed above, it appears that Plaintiff had the opportunity to compare Verde's rates on a monthly basis with the PSE&G rates and exit the contract at any time. Given that Verde's monthly rate is the crux of Plaintiff's case, the Court cannot infer bad faith when Plaintiff had an opportunity to easily compare the rate with PSE&G's each month. As a result, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count Three is also dismissed, the Court rules. * TCCWNA (Count Four) Defendant argues that the TCCWNA does not create an independent cause of action. Because Plaintiff's CFA claim fails, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's TCCWNA claim must also be dismissed. In this instance, Plaintiff's TCCWNA claim is premised on a purported violation of the CFA. Because the Court concluded that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently state a CFA claim, his TCCWNA claim cannot survive either. Count Four, therefore, is dismissed, the Court rules. In sum, the Court orders that Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/sbese69 from Leagle.com RAY MARSHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JASON TRAVIS BROWN , BROWN, LLC, 304 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07302 VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant, represented by JILL RACHEL COHEN - jcohen@eckertseamans.com - ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC. VERMONT COUNTY STORE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vermont Country Store, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Vermont Country Store, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02293 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Vermont Country Store, Inc. is an American catalog, retail, and e-commerce business based in Vermont.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com VI-JON INC: Sanitizer's Anti-Virus Claim Deceptive, Sibley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL SIBLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VI-JON, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00951-MMC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices connected with the advertising, marketing, and sales of Germ-X, an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. According to the complaint, Germ-X is advertised, marketed, and sold as a product that will prevent or reduce human infection from the flu and other viruses. However, the Defendant has no reliable studies to make such a representation. The Plaintiff purchased Germ-X because of the Defendant's advertising and branding, which suggest that Germ-X will reduce infection and the disease of the flu and other viruses. However, like the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other consumers who purchased Germ-X, the Plaintiff received only the dangerous, false confidence that accompanies a product without reliable studies to support its claim of flu and virus infection prevention. Vi-Jon, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers mouth wash, denture cleansers, first aid, laxatives, skin, baby, hair, and sun care products. Vi-Jon serves customers in the North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq. HUSSIN LAW FIRM 1596 N. Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (877) 677-5397 Facsimile: (877) 667-1547 E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com - and - Daniel R. Johnson, Esq. WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP 954 W. Washington Blvd. Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 278-3153 Facsimile: (312) 690-4641 - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com VOWERK LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vowerk, LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vowerk, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02297 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vorwerk is an international diversified corporate group headquartered in Wuppertal, Germany. The main business is the direct distribution of various products like household appliances, fitted kitchens and cosmetics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Midgett Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled as, CHRISTOPHER MIDGETT, individually And on behalf of similarly situated persons v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-00238-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a nationwide class action under Nebraska law defined as: Wage Class: "all current and former drivers who were classified as independent contractors and transported Defendant's truckload shipments using trucks they owned or leased within four years of the commencement of this action. 2. conditionally certifying a nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act collective action defined as: FLSA Class: "all current and former drivers classified as independent contractors who transported Defendant's truckload shipments using trucks they owned or leased within three years of the commencement of this action"; 3. appointing Mr. Midgett as Class Representative, and appointing Jack McInnes, of McInnes Law LLC, and Eric Dirks and Courtney Stout, of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, to serve as the Class Counsel. 4. approving his Proposed Class Notice and authorizing Plaintiff to send notice of this case to the putative members of the Classes within 28 days of entry of an Order Certifying the Classes. 5. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel with a computer readable data file containing the name, birth date, social security number, last known address, and last known (non-work) email for each putative class member within 14 days of entry of an Order Certifying the Classes. Werner is an American freight carrier and transportation and logistics company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC 1100 Main Street Ste: 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816)-945-7110 Facsimile: (816)-945-7118 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com cstout@williamsdirks.com - and - Jack McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 1900 West 75th Street, Suite 120 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 220-2488 Facsimile: (913) 273-1671 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com WEST MARINE: Settlement Reached in Class Action Over Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC informs holders of West Marine, Inc.'S ("WEST MARINE") common stock as of Sept. 14, 2017, the date of the consummation of West Marine's merger, that a proposed settlement has been reached in the action, captioned PATTERSON v. REPASS et al., Case No. 17-CV-01995 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and an Order of the Court on December 12, 2018, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action and that a settlement for $2,500,000 has been proposed (the "Settlement"). Under the Settlement, the settlement amount, minus any Court-approved attorneys' fees, incentive awards, expenses, and administrative costs, will be distributed on a per-share basis to Class members who owned shares of West Marine common stock as of September 14, 2017, the date of the consummation of the Merger. A hearing will be held before the Honorable John Gallagher in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Department 10, located at 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060, at 8:30 a.m. on May 13, 2020 to determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiff's Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards for the named Plaintiff (the "Settlement Hearing"). IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. You may obtain copies of the Stipulation of the Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release„ a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), and instructions concerning your right to appear and object to the Settlement or award of attorneys' fees by visiting the website or contacting Plaintiff's Counsel: BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Evan J. Smith Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 610.667.6200 MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Juan E. Monteverde The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 212.971.1341 As described more fully in the Notice, you need not file a written objection in order to object and may appear at the Settlement Hearing personally to make an oral objection. In the event there is a written objection it shall be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff's counsel above such that they are received no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, or no later than April 22, 2020. If you want to be excluded from the Class and Settlement, you must make a request in writing no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, or no later than April 22, 2020. [GN] WESTPAC BANKING: Pawar Reminds Investors of March 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Westpac Banking Corporation (WBK) from November 11, 2015 through November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Westpac Banking Corporation investors under the federal securities laws. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To express an interest in the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3) the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Attorney advertising. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 E-mail: info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] WEYMOUTH-HINGHAM MOTOR: Guzman Seeks OT Wages for Car Salesmen -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WEYMOUTH-HINGHAM MOTOR SALES, INC. and CHARLES G. TUFANKJIAN, Case No. 20-0463C (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 18, 2020), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay to their car salesmen. The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and related products. These employees work in excess of 40 hours per week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours and/or Sunday Premium Pay, in violation of Massachusetts law, says the complaint. Weymouth-Hingham Motor Sales, Inc., operates as a car dealer. Mr. Tufankjian has served as the president and treasurer of Weymouth-Hingham Motor Sales, Inc.[BN] The 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 Telephone: (617)338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com WILCO LIFE: District Court Reopens Anderson's Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, reopened the case styled as VANESSA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-008 (S.D. Ga.). Under the case, Plaintiff Anderson, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleged that the Defendant improperly raised her insurance premiums to a level that caused her policy to lapse. She originally filed the lawsuit in Columbia County, Georgia, but the Defendant removed the case to the Georgia District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case, arguing that the Defendant could not meet CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. The District Court granted the motion to remand which the Defendant appealed, arguing that the face value of the putative class' insurance policies totalled more than $5 million, satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court's remand Order, reasoning that because the Plaintiff and the class seek to reinstate their now-lapsed insurance policies, the face value of the policies should be included in the amount in controversy. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Hall made the Mandate of the Eleventh Circuit the Order of the District Court. The Judge directed the Clerk of the Court to vacate the stay of July 17, 2019 and reopen the case. The parties are directed to file a Rule 26(f) report in accordance with the District Court's Jan. 14, 2019 Order without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/jizRDY from Leagle.com. Vanessa Anderson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Leroy Weathers Brigham -- lee@bellbrigham.com -- Bell & Brigham, Charles A. McCallum, III, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, pro hac vice & R. Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, pro hac vice. Wilco Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Campbell -- ecampbell@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Anna K. Finger, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice. WYETH INC: Denial of Schlager Claims in Diet Drugs Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the district court order affirming arbitrator's denial of benefits related to Schlager's 2010 surgery and 2014 stroke in IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. NORMA SCHLAGER, Appellant, Case No. 19-2195 (3d Cir.). The appeal addresses the timeliness of a claim for benefits under a nationwide class action settlement related to the ingestion of diet drugs and the onset of valvular heart disease. The terms of the settlement agreement provided for two damage matrices: a low-level matrix and a high-level matrix. Norma Schlager is a class member who initially sought low-level matrix benefits. She now seeks high-level matrix benefits due to valvular heart surgery she underwent on Sept. 2, 2010, and a stroke she had on June 29, 2014. Due to the terms of the settlement agreement and her lack of an opt-out, Schlager's ability to recover high-level matrix benefits is governed by the Seventh Amendment to the settlement agreement. Under that provision, to seek high-level matrix benefits after initially requesting low-level matrix benefits, a class member must meet certain requirements. For Schlager, who last ingested diet drugs in 1995, she needed to experience a qualifying event triggering a claim for benefits (a) no later than Dec. 31, 2011, and (b) while she was 79 years old or under. And to request high-level matrix benefits, she needed to submit a document, referred to as the Green Form, to the administrator of the settlement trust. The Green Form had to be completed either by her or her representative, and a physician. Originally, the Seventh Amendment did not include a time period for submitting a Green Form. But an order entered by the District Court, referred to as 'Court Approved Procedure 16,' imposed deadlines for the Green Form. That order dictated that a completed Green Form must have been received within four years after the later of (i) the date of the order, which was entered on Nov. 8, 2010, or (ii) the first diagnosis of "the last occurring condition or event upon which the claim for high-level matrix benefits is based. Schlager seeks Level IV high-level matrix benefits based on her 2010 surgery and her 2014 stroke. To obtain those benefits, Schlager completed and submitted a Green Form, which was received on Feb. 6, 2017. The settlement trust administrator denied Schlager benefits, and Schlager contested that outcome. Consistent with the terms of the class action settlement agreement, the District Court then referred the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the denial of benefits related to Schlager's 2010 surgery because the Green Form was submitted too late. Her 2017 Green Form was received over four years past both the entry of Court Approved Procedure 16 and her 2010 surgery. The arbitrator also upheld the denial of benefits related to Schlager's 2014 stroke for two reasons: her stroke occurred after Dec. 31, 2011, and she was 81 years old at the time. Schlager then appealed the arbitrator's decision to the District Court, which, in exercising jurisdiction, affirmed the arbitrator's award. Schlager appealed again to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit holds that regardless of the timeliness of her Green Form, Schlager cannot recover for her 2014 stroke under the terms of the settlement agreement. The stroke occurred on June 29, 2014, after the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for a qualifying event. Also, because Schlager was 81 years old when she suffered that stroke, she was not eligible to recover benefits for it. For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Jan. 21, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/U4utZS from Leagle.com. ********* 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 ***