/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 64 Headlines ABC PHONES: Hardney FLSA Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to E.D.N.C. ACCOUNT CONTROL: Hill Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation ADENIKE GRAHAM: Synergy Flavors Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware Suit Proceeds to Discovery AIR-SEA PACKING: Bannerman Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval ALLERGAN PLC: $750MM Agreement Reached in Namenda(R) Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Restasis(R) Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Agreements Reached in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Warner Chilcott Related Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement Agreement Entered in Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Arellano FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois AMERICAN NATIONAL: Smith Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Bruce Class Suit Pending AMERICAN WATER: West Virginia Water Main Break Class Suit Ongoing AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California APP OF NEW MEXICO: Lax Suit Removed to District of New Mexico ART VAN FURNITURE: Stewart Sues Alleging Violation of WARN Act ATLAS LAW: Curtis Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending BLUE APRON: Final Settlement Hearing Set for April 16 BLUE VALLEY: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot in "Baker" BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces Perez FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CARTER'S INC: Simon Sues Over Deceptive Advertised Sale Price CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filed Suit over Ambetter Policies CINCINNATI BELL: Palkon Challenges Sale to Macquarie Affiliates CONVERSE INC: Court Denies Class Certification in Madeira Suit CORE HEALTH: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA DELTA AIR: Amadi Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California DIGI-KEY CORP: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ENERGEN RESOURCES: Bid to Reconsider Anderson Certification Denied EVENFLO COMPANY: Booster Seats Are Not Safe, Reed Suit Alleges EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Whiteside Says EXCLUSIVELY CATS: Surveys Not Covered by TCPA, Court Says EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shen Securities Suit in N.D. Texas FAT BRANDS: Vignola Lawsuit Won't Proceed as Class Action FEDEX GROUND: Colorado District Enters Show Cause Order in Bachanov FIRST SOLAR: Enters Into Settlement Agreement in Smilovits Suit FITBIT INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Willis Suit FLORES ROOFING: Sued by Morales Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FLYING FOOD: Ortiz Suit Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages FREDA SALVADOR: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA FRESH EXPRESS: Brady BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois G4S SECURE: Court Denies Dismissal of Snell FCRA Class Suit GC SERVICES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Kijek" GO TO DRA: Irons-Williams Sues in N.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation HALL MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Martinez Pending Settlement Approval HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Defends Rodgers Class Action INNOVATIVE GROWERS: Haymer Sues Over Collection of Biometrics INSURANCE OFFICE: Faces Power Securities Suit Over Ponzi Scheme JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Average Wholesale Price Suits Resolved JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Plan Participants Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Contaminated Talc Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Reversed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal of TRACLEER(R) Suit Under Appeal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens Suit Set for June JOTSENS INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA JP MORGAN CHASE: Wynn Sues Under TCPA Over Unsolicited Calls JPMORGAN CHASE: O'Toole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KLOECKNER METALS: Lumpkins Sues Over Collection of Biometrics KNIGHT DENTAL: Faces Henry Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Initial OK LORAC COSMETICS: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York MANDARICH LAW: 9th Cir. Vacates Final Judgment in David FDCPA Suit MARK S. RICCIARDI: Faces Walsh FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York MCGOVERN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Coraccio Suit Claims MDL 2795: Deal in CenturyLink Securities Suit Gets Prelim Approval MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Russell Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California MGM RESORTS: Faces Metz Suit in Northern District of California MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Horne Suit Alleges MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Faces Sklair Class Suit in S.D. New York MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Wood Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for FOs MINISTRY OF SUPPLY: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York MRS BPO: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in Oleson NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Ellis Suit Seeks Court to Certify Classes NAVITUS HEALTH: Phillips Suit Seeks Conditional & Class Cert. NCAA: Sued by Strawbridges for Ignoring Student-Athletes' Safety NETGEAR INC: Says Settlement Discussions Underway OASIS LEGAL: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Davis Lawsuit ONECOIN LTD: Alternative Means of Service in Berdeaux Partly Okayed ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Faces Fenwick Suit Over Violations of TCPA PANARIUM KISSENA: Luo Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action PG&E CORP: Accord over 2017 and 2018 Wildfires Okayed PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Conditional Class Certification Sought POCH PERSONNEL: Samuels Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arnold Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia PRIME NOW LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Mabanta Suit Claims PRIVATEER EVOLUTION: Faces Braun Stockholder Suit in Delaware PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Faces Bradford Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. PROPETRO HOLDING: Amended Complaint Filed in Logan Class Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Replace Named Plaintiff Wilson Allowed R & M FREIGHT: Lumpkins Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data RADIUS GLOBAL: Vasquez Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation RAYDON CORP: ESOP Participants Class Certified in Woznicki Suit RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement in Blair Suit Gets Final Approval RINCON PROGRESENO: Sanchez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida RSCR CALIFORNIA: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Massiah Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Fla. SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Sys. and Li Suits Pending SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Suit vs. Scientific Games Ongoing SEE'S CANDY: Taylor Labor Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA SIMCO FINE: Faces Sandoval Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Suit Seeks to Certify Class SKYE ASSOCIATES: Violates Disabilities Act, Kalender Suit Alleges SPARTAN RACE: Faces Fruitstone Insurance Suit in S.D. Florida SS IP HOLDINGS: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ST. ANNE'S CREDIT: Faces Rapoza Suit Over Insufficient Funds Fees TAXSLAYER PRO: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in Suit Under IDEA TUFIN SOFTWARE: Faces Primozich Suit Over Drop of IPO Share Price UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Fails to Honor Payer Obligations, MSP Says UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca Immigration Suit in S.D. New York VERISK ANALYTICS: Sheahan Class Action Ongoing in California WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Alvarado Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California WAWA INC: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App WAYFINDER FAMILY: Ellie Labor Suit Seeks Penalties Under PAGA WEISER SECURITY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Smith Class Suit Alleges WINCO FOODS: Court Certifies California Class in Johnson Suit ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Rhoden Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages ZENDESK INC: Court Consolidates Reidinger & Ho Securities Suits ZYNGA INC: Johnson Files Suit in Northern District of California ********* ABC PHONES: Hardney FLSA Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to E.D.N.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as RON HARDNEY, MANUEL PANNGASIRI, and MICHELLE SALWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 3:19-cv-12722 (Filed May 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Feb. 27, 2020. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle. The Eastern District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00076-BO. to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, on behalf themselves and all current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid Store Managers within the United States from the later of May 20, 2016, or the date in which the Defendant reclassified its SM position from exempt to hourly, non-exempt through the date of final judgment. ABC Phones was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services such as cellular telephone services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael John Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 ACCOUNT CONTROL: Hill Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control Technology, Inc. The case is captioned as Herbert Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Account Control Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01498 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ACT offers debt recovery, debt collection, accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com ADENIKE GRAHAM: Synergy Flavors Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Adenike Graham. The case is styled as Synergy Flavors, Inc., Kimberly Mcnulty v. Adenike Graham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-01907 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as miscellaneous cases. Synergy Flavors is a supplier of flavors, essences and extracts for the global food and beverage industry.[BN] Plaintiff Synergy Flavors, Inc., is represented by: Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 W. Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: (312) 345-1718 Email: Jacob.Sawyer@lewisbrisbois.com Plaintiff Kimberly Mcnulty is represented by: An Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 784-6276 Email: atruong@simmonsfirm.com ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware Suit Proceeds to Discovery ------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that the surviving claims in the class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will now be subject to discovery. On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about our financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 7, 2020 the court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss. The surviving claims will now be subject to discovery. Advance Auto said, "We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously." Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts, accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. AIR-SEA PACKING: Bannerman Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYRONE BANNERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AIR-SEA PACKING GROUP INC. and RALPH LAUREN CORP., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-06146-PGG (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Gardephe approved the settlement set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement and finds that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class Members. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Counsels' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awarded the Class Counsel's Firm a total of $182,798.17 in attorneys' fees, or 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount. The Judge awarded Service Payments of $20,000, divided equally between Tyrone Bannerman and Jean Alverez, from the Gross Settlement Amount. Up to $3,841.45 is approved to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount for litigation costs and expenses and Settlement Administration Costs not to exceed $8,000. The action will be and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice. Though the Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of enforcing the Amended Settlement Agreement, the judgment is a Final Judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/6HM4kh from Leagle.com. Tyrone Bannerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Jean Alvarez, Plaintiffs, represented by Mariyam Hussain -- mhussain@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC, Rachel Meredith Haskell -- rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC & Christopher Quincy Davis -- cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC. Air-Sea Packing Group Inc. & Ralph Lauren Corp., Defendants, represented by Jay P. Warren -- jpwarren@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. ALLERGAN PLC: $750MM Agreement Reached in Namenda(R) Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the direct purchaser class action related to sales of Namenda(R) have reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation for $750.0 million, which contains no admission of liability, remains subject to final court approval. In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest Laboratories, Inc. (Forest) was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda(R) XR. The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement to resolve the dispute. Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter, putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers in the same federal court. The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between a Company subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. The court had denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 28, 2019. Prior to the start of the trial, the parties in the direct purchaser class action reached an agreement in principle to settle that litigation for $750.0 million, which was expensed in the year ended December 31, 2019. The agreement, which contains no admission of liability, remains subject to final court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Restasis(R) Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company reached a agreements in principle to settle the claims asserted by all direct purchaser plaintiffs involving Restasis(R) Class Action Litigation, and the Company has recorded an accrual of $78.8 million for these settlements. Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that subsidiaries of the Company harmed competition by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws, as well as declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in April 2020. Recently, the Company reached a agreements in principle to settle the claims asserted by all direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company has recorded an accrual of $78.8 million for these settlements. The Company intends to vigorously defend its conduct and the patents or other intellectual property at issue in what remains of this litigation. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Agreements Reached in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation have reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs that, taken together, will resolve this litigation in its entirety. Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful, are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws. The court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion but had not decided the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class motion. Summary judgement motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments were held in September 2019. Trial in this action was scheduled to begin in January 2020. The parties reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs that, taken together, will resolve this litigation in its entirety. Allergan said, "Based on the settlement with the plaintiffs, the Company recorded an accrual of $302.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2019. The direct and indirect purchaser settlement agreements remain subject to court approval." Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Warner Chilcott Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that following the dismissal of the Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices related suit, plaintiffs recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New Jersey. A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain products. The court recently granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Following the dismissal of the action in federal court, plaintiffs recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New Jersey. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the ERISA plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from a district court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Litigation. Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements between February 2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company's internal controls over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the court denied the motion in a ruling on August 6, 2019. The parties are now engaging in discovery in these cases. In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint. The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement Agreement Entered in Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the remaining Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) related class suits have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve both of these matters. Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Most of these claims were resolved through a settlement in September 2014. However, two lawsuits remain which assert claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The court had entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants in both actions and denied plaintiffs' class certification motions. Plaintiffs in both cases appealed the dismissal of their claims and denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the appeals court issued a decision in January 2019 affirming the denial of the class certification motions but reversing the lower court's decision granting the defendants' summary judgment motions. In December 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve both of these matters. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Arellano FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp. The case is captioned as Antonio Arellano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-01500 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alpha Recovery Corp. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com AMERICAN NATIONAL: Smith Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Gary, Smith Lor Smith, and all others similarly situated v. American National Property and Casualty Company, Case No. CJ-20-00460, was removed from the Oklahoma District Court, Tulsa County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on March 20, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00115-GKF-FHM to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from insurance-related claims. American National Property And Casualty Company is a property and casualty insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq. JEFF MARTIN & ASSOC PC 1611 S Utica, Ste. 173 Tulsa, OK 74104 Phone: (918) 583-4165 Fax: (918) 583-4166 Email: JM8069337@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Margo Elizabeth Shipley, Esq. William Walker O'Connor, Esq. HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON 320 S Boston, Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Phone: (918) 594-0400 Fax: (918) 594-0505 Email: mshipley@hallestill.com boconnor@hallestill.com AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Bruce Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the class action suit entitled, Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al., is pending. On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("TAWC"), experienced a break of a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main break by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon on September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and the Service Company (collectively, the "Tennessee-American Water Defendants"), on behalf of an alleged class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga main break (the "Tennessee Plaintiffs"). The complaint alleges breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. The Tennessee Plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, for lack of personal jurisdiction. A hearing on this motion is scheduled for February 18, 2020. The Tennessee-American Water Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and they are vigorously defending themselves against these allegations. American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides water and wastewater services in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. AMERICAN WATER: West Virginia Water Main Break Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend the Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action. On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's (WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar. The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure to up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored on July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to dismiss all of the Jeffries plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules. In May 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and in October 2018, the court issued a written order to that effect. On February 21, 2019, the court issued an order denying WVAWC's motion to dismiss the Jeffries plaintiffs’ tort claims. On August 21, 2019, the court set a procedural schedule in this case, including a trial date of September 21, 2020. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. A hearing on class certification is currently scheduled for March 11, 2020. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint and WVAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides water and wastewater services in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled JUSTIN LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Company; and DOES ONE through TEN, Case No. CV-20-000412 (Filed Jan. 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 27, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00308-NONE-EPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises out of the work performed by the Plaintiff for the Defendants. The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' failure to pay earned wages; failure to timely pay earned wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods, pay premium wages; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code. AmeriCold Logistics is a major temperature controlled warehousing and transportation company based in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. AmeriCold is in the business of modern commercialized temperature-controlled warehousing for the storage of perishable goods, one of the forms of food preservation.[BN] Defendant AmeriCold Logistics is represented by: Rebecca Aragon, Esq. E. Clifton Martin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 443 4300 Facsimile: 213 443 4299 E-mail: raragon@littler.com cmartin@littler.com APP OF NEW MEXICO: Lax Suit Removed to District of New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Brian Lax, Tracy Buron-Hahnlein, Werner Hahnlein, Jeremy Hader, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APP of New Mexico ED, PLLC formerly known as: AlignMD of New Mexico, PLLC, Lovelace Health System, LLC, Case No. D-202-CV-2020-01090, was removed from the Second Judicial District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on March 23, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00264-SCY-JFR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. APP OF NEW MEXICO ED PLLC provides emergency medicine in Albuquerque, New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Kramer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. KRAMER LLC P.O. Box 4662 Albuquerque, NM 87196 Phone: (505) 545-8105 Fax: (505) 715-4884 Email: david.c.kramer@swcp.com - and - Richard N. Feferman, Esq. Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq. FEFERMA WARREN MATTISON 300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 243-7773 Fax: (505) 243-6663 Email: rfeferman@msn.com nmattison@nmconsumerwarriors.com The Defendant is represented by: Frank Alvarez, Esq. QUINTAROS PRIETO WOOD & BOYER PA 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4545 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 754-8755 Fax: (214) 754-8744 Email: frank.alvarez@qpwblaw.com ART VAN FURNITURE: Stewart Sues Alleging Violation of WARN Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Stewart and Jennifer Sawle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ART VAN FURNITURE, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-50548-CSS (D. Del., March 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of former employees, who worked for the Defendants and who were terminated without cause as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the Defendants beginning on March 4, 2020, and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by the Defendants, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiffs were terminated along with approximately 700 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of a mass layoffs or plant shutdowns ordered by the Defendants. These terminations failed to give the Plaintiffs at least 60 days' advance notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. As a consequence of the violation, the Plaintiffs seek their statutory remedies. Plaintiff Stewart was employed by the Defendants as the Store Manager, while Plaintiff Sawle as a salesperson. Art Van Furniture LLC is a Delaware corporation that operate 169 locations, including 92 furniture and mattress showrooms and 77 freestanding mattress and specialty locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Joyce, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOYCE, LLC 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302)-388-1944 Email: mjoyce@mjlawoffices.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com ATLAS LAW: Curtis Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as LEONARD CURTIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ATLAS LAW, PLLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order that: 1. conditionally certifies a class of individuals under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 for settlement purposes only; "all natural persons with a Florida address to whom defendant sent a letter based on the Template in connection with the collection of a debt on or after July 24, 2018 through August 6, 2019"; 2. preliminarily approves the parties' class settlement agreement; 3. appoints himself as the representative plaintiff for the Class; 4. appoints Alex D. Weisberg of the Weisberg Consumer Law Group and Elliot A. Rosenberger of the Thompson Consumer Law Group as counsel for the Class; 5. approves the form of the proposed notice and method for distributing notice to the Class; and 6. sets a final fairness hearing to determine whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Plaintiff and Defendant have reached an agreement to resolve this matter on a classwide basis. The Agreement calls for Defendant to pay $1,000 to Plaintiff and to establish a settlement fund of $3,500, to be split equally among the class members who submit claims. The Agreement allows Plaintiff to apply to the Court for an additional $500 award for his service to the Class and for Class Counsel to seek reasonable attorney's fees and costs, but the validity of the Agreement is not conditioned upon the Court awarding these amounts, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that Atlas Law violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to state in a collection letter that any dispute of his debt must be made "in writing." The Defendant sent the same letter to approximately 1,500 people during the class period. Atlas is a law firm.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff are: Elliot A. Rosenberger, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (888) 332-7252 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: erosenberger@thompsonconsumerlaw.com BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated class action suit remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers and directors made material misstatements or omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the Court. The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially similar to the above-referenced federal court action. The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the federal court action. Blue Apron said, "The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BLUE APRON: Final Settlement Hearing Set for April 16 ------------------------------------------------------ Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the final settlement agreement on April 16, 2020. The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court under the Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California fulfillment center. The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of California law. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A mediation was held on November 20, 2019, at which time the cases were not resolved. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in federal court. On December 18, 2019, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which, if finalized and approved by the court, will resolve both actions in their entirety. The parties are working toward finalizing a settlement agreement and the court has set the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 2, 2020 and has vacated all other deadlines in the class-action case, including the due date for the Company's opposition to the motion for class certification. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the final settlement agreement on April 16, 2020. Blue Apron said, "If the parties do not finalize the settlement agreement or if the court does not approve the settlement agreement, the cases will continue." Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BLUE VALLEY: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot in "Baker" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRI E. BAKER v. BLUE VALLEY USD 229, et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-02480-HLT-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order: 1. granting State Defendants' motion to dismiss and school defendant's motion to dismiss case; 2. dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury-in-fact sufficient to sustain Article III standing; and 3. denying without prejudice as moot plaintiff's motion for preliminary and permanent injunction, State Defendants' motion to stay deadlines, plaintiff's motion to certify as class action, and defendants' joint motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' class certification motion. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://is.gd/klTUXK from PacerMonitor.com. According to a report by Sarah Ritter, writing for The Kansas City Star, Linus Baker, a Johnson County lawyer, and his wife, Terri, sued Blue Valley schools and state officials, calling Kansas' immunization requirements unconstitutional and archaic. The Bakers -- who are the child's biological grandparents and now adoptive parents -- sued Blue Valley school district, Gov. Laura Kelly, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lee Norman, secretary for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The Bakers previously sued the Kansas Department of Children and Families, which in 2017 had notified them it would vaccinate the boy against their wishes. That never happened. In 2018, a federal judge dismissed all claims. "We have this right of having bodily integrity," said Linus Baker, who works as a lawyer in Stilwell, in southern Johnson County. "You can't pump someone's stomach against their wishes. You can't make someone take drugs. You can't make a woman have an abortion. You can't do a lot of things because of bodily integrity. So why is it we can force a child to be injected with vaccines 24 times? It's the same principle." State health officials and vaccine proponents have argued that unvaccinated children pose a health risk to others. They point to the recent measles outbreak in Johnson County and elsewhere, a disease that has reappeared since the anti-vaccination movement has grown. The Bakers' son, who is being referred to as S.F.B in court documents, was born with a heart condition, which required surgery when he was 6 months old. He's now physically healthy, according to the new lawsuit, but Linus Baker said he has mental disabilities. The family worries about how vaccines could affect his health. The Bakers also have religious objections. Kansas law provides two exemptions to the school immunization requirement, based on religious beliefs and medical concerns. To claim the medical exemption, a family must provide an annual written statement signed by a licensed physician stating vaccinations would seriously endanger the life or health of the child. Linus Baker said his child would not qualify for that exemption under state law. For the religious exemption, the state offers two versions. To enroll in a child care facility, a parent must sign a statement saying: "As the parent or legal guardian, I state that I am an adherent of a religious denomination whose teachings are opposed to immunizations." But to enroll a child in a school or preschool -- which is the case with the Bakers' boy -- the parent must submit in writing that "the child is an adherent of a religious denomination whose religious teachings are opposed to such tests or inoculations." That's the statement S.F.B's mother submitted to the state. Linus Baker said the statement is "irrational" and "does not comply" with Kansas statutes. The family does have religious objection to vaccines, he said. Terri Baker is a Christian and holds a strong belief that vaccines pose health risks, despite scientific research showing the benefits far outweigh any risks. But he argues that a 4-year-old mentally challenged child cannot choose to adhere to a religious denomination. "As students get older, they certainly formulate their own beliefs. But this is a 4-year-old without the mental capacity to make that decision," he said. "He likes Spider-Man. But I doubt he knows anything about adhering to a religious denomination." In the lawsuit, the Bakers request an injunction allowing their son to attend public or private schools without being vaccinated, and without filing a religious or medical exemption. They also ask for a declaration that Kansas' exemption statute is "unconstitutionally vague," and that requiring a child to be an adherent of a religious denomination is a violation of parents' right to make decisions for their child. Blue Valley is a unified school district headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. Located in east central and southeast Johnson County, Kansas, covering 91 square miles of Overland Park including parts of Leawood and Stilwell, all within the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.[CC] BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces Perez FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marilena Perez, Mariam Malave-Vega, on behalf of themselves and all other all other similarly situated persons v. BUTTERBALL, LLC, NORTH STATE SERVICES, LLC, TIMOTHY REID FULCHER, and HEATHER BROOKE FULCHER, Case No. 5:20-cv-00113-FL (E.D.N.C., March 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act for unpaid overtime wages. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime premium required by the FLSA, of 50% of the "regular rate" of wages for all hours worked over 40 in the same workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NCWHA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform all tasks required. The Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1828 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Phone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919) 821-1763 Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com CARTER'S INC: Simon Sues Over Deceptive Advertised Sale Price ------------------------------------------------------------- TODD SIMON, for Himself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. CARTER'S INC.; THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01436-VKD (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 26, 2020), alleges that Carter's violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law because its advertised discounts and reference prices are false arising from the fact that it has never, or almost never, offered its products at the list price. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's perpetrates this illegal scheme to create the illusion of savings and to induce customers to purchase its products. He adds that Carter's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price represents a special bargain--when in reality and unbeknownst to the customer, the "sale" price is approximately equal to Carter's usual and normal selling price for the product. Virtually all of the products offered in Carter's retail stores are manufactured by Carter's and bear the "Carter's" brand name. Carter's fraudulent advertising scheme harms consumers like him, Mr. Simon asserts. Carter's is a retailer and manufacturer of baby and young children's clothing, with 418 Carter's-branded retail stores in the U.S., including 94 in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 1401 Twenty-First Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 292-9739 Facsimile: (916) 444-8723 E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com dan@hattislaw.com CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filed Suit over Ambetter Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies are seeking class certification. On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants, abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant. In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation (Defendants), both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 8, 2020. Centene said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations." Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri. CINCINNATI BELL: Palkon Challenges Sale to Macquarie Affiliates --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Palkon, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CINCINNATI BELL INC., LYNN A. WENTWORTH, MEREDITH J. CHING, WALTER A. DODS, JR., JOHN W. ECK, LEIGH R. FOX, JAKKI L. HAUSSLER, CRAIG F. MAIER, RUSSEL P. MAYER, THEODORE H. TORBECK, MARTIN J. YUDKOVITZ, RED FIBER PARENT LLC, and RF MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00244 (D. Del., March 23, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Cincinnati Bell will be acquired by affiliates of Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V. On March 13, 2020, Cincinnati Bell's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Red Fiber Parent LLC ("Parent"), a Delaware limited liability company, and RF Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub," and together with Parent, "Red Fiber"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cincinnati Bell's stockholders will receive $15.50 in cash for each share of Cincinnati Bell common stock they own. On March 19, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The Plaintiff contends that the the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections, and the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS") and Moelis & Company LLC. According to the complaint, the omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing plaintiff and the Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the owner of Cincinnati Bell common stock. Cincinnati Bell delivers integrated communications solutions to residential and business customers over its fiber-optic and copper networks including high-speed internet, video, voice, and data.[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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: 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 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com CONVERSE INC: Court Denies Class Certification in Madeira Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRYAN MADEIRA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC. and DOES 1–50, Case No. 5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. remanding the action to San Bernardino Superior Court. In November 2018, the Plaintiff Bryan filed this putative wage and hour class action against Defendant Converse, Inc. et al. in San Bernardino Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of current and former hourly Converse employees in California. On January 25, 2019, Converse removed the lawsuit to the District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator at the Converse Distribution Center from December 7, 2015 through July 18, 2018. The Defendant Converse is a footwear and apparel company that sells and distributes goods in California.[CC] CORE HEALTH: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Health and Fitness, LLC. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Core Health and Fitness, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01734-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Core Health manufactures and supplies fitness equipment.[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 DELTA AIR: Amadi Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as KECHI AMADI, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 20STCV03627, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01977 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claim against the Defendant's policy and practice to deny earned wages, including premium and overtime, in violation of the California Labor Code. Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a legacy carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile: (310) 860-0771 Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., is represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com DIGI-KEY CORP: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digi-Key Corporation. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Digi-Key Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01735-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Digi-Key is an electronic component distributor in North America and a broad-line distributor of board level components.[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 ENERGEN RESOURCES: Bid to Reconsider Anderson Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-00909 WJ/CG (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the Distirct of New Mexico denied both (i) the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Class Certification, filed Dec. 18, 2019; (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Surreply to Energen's Reply for Reconsideration of Order Granting Class Certification, filed Jan. 13, 2020. On Dec. 5, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' "Narrowed" Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant requests reconsideration of that ruling. It claims that the Court's order incorrectly "appears to assume" that the Plaintiffs defined the class to include all of Energen's royalty owners under its Colorado leases, referring to language in the Court's order stating that: all of Energen's royalty owners under its Colorado leases are putative class members because all of these putative class members allege underpayment of royalty for fuel gas. Judge Johnson finds that the Plaintiffs intended "all" to mean all the leases in the restricted definition of the class. Although the Court compounded the error by repeating "all" in reference to Colorado leases in its Order, the Court did not assume that the purported class included all of the Colorado leases and it should be abundantly clear from the text of the Order. Thus, the Court's Order granting class certification adopts the Plaintiffs' more limited class definition and excludes any owners under leases which do not require royalty on fuel gas. As a result, there is no clear error or misapprehension, as the Defendant contends, the Court opines. Judge Johnson agrees with the Plaintiffs on the ascertainability issue in the Court's Order granting class certification and finds that the Defendant offers no new evidence or legal reason to find otherwise now. Therefore, the Judge rejects the Defendant's argument that the members of the proposed class are not ascertainable. Judge Johnson also finds that the Court did not misapprehend the issues or the parties' arguments, nor was it legally incorrect in concluding that any differences in the quality of natural gas produced from Energen's wells do not preclude a finding of commonality. Accordingly, the Defendant has offered no basis that persuades the Court to modify its previous rulings granting the Plaintiffs' Narrowed Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs seek to file a surreply to correct misstatements made by Energen in its reply to its motion for reconsideration and have attached a copy of the proposed surreply as an exhibit to their motion. The Judge holds that a surreply is not necessary. Based on a review of the attached proposed surreply, the Judge finds that the Defendant's purported errors were not critical to his analysis. Because the Court did not rely on any of the information presented in the proposed surreply, the Plaintiffs' motion is denied. Energen opposes the Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply, but in light of the disposition of its Motion for Reconsideration, there is no need to wait for a response, the Court notes. The Plaintiffs' motion is therefore denied, the Court avers. Upon the foregoing, Judge Johnson denies both (i) the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration; (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Surreply. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/tvOS1u from Leagle.com. Anderson Living Trust, formerly known as James H. Anderson Living Trust, Pritchett Living Trust, Neely-Robertson Revocable Family Trust & The Tatum Living Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley D. Brickell, Brickell & Associates, PC, pro hac vice, Brian K. Branch, The Law Office of Brian K. Branch & Turner W. Branch, Branch Law Firm. Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP & Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. EVENFLO COMPANY: Booster Seats Are Not Safe, Reed Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- LINDSAY REED, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00081-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Feb. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's marketing of its booster seats is deceptive and misleading, as the use of these seats by children weighing less than 40 pounds is in direct contravention to the safety recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Plaintiff says that there is no federal safety standard or test governing side impact for car seats. Given the absence of any such standard or test, the Defendant created its own test--with no basis in safety or science--and then proceeded to consistently give itself a passing grade and market the Booster Seat as "side impact tested," says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that contrary to Evenflo's marketing and safety representations, it has recently been revealed that the Defendant has known for a significant period of time that the Booster Seat is not safe for children lighter than 40 pounds, and that the Defendant's own testing confirmed that a child seated in the Booster Seat could be in grave danger in the event of a side-impact collision. She adds that if the Defendant had been honest and not deceptively misrepresented the very real safety risks posed by its Booster Seat in the event of a side-impact collision, no parent would have ever purchased the Defendant's Booster Seat. The Defendant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of China-based Goodbaby International Holdings Limited and manufactures, markets, and sells car seats and other baby and child-related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 - and - Alex Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 450-9689 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. Martha Geer, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com harper@wbmllp.com martha@wbmllp.com EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Whiteside Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boyd Whiteside, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EVERGREEN PACKAGING, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00304-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff worked. The Plaintiff regularly worked in over forty hours per week but the Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff of regular wages and overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried employee from April of 2013 until February of 2020. The Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas, operating and managing a paper mill in Jefferson County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com april@sanfordlawfirm.com EXCLUSIVELY CATS: Surveys Not Covered by TCPA, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EXCLUSIVELY CATS VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C. v. M/A/R/C RESEARCH, L.L.C., Case No. 3:19-cv-11228-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert H. Cleland entered an order: 1. granting MARC Research's motion to dismiss; 2. dismissing Exclusively Cats Veterinary Hospital's Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim; 3. dismissing the statutory conversion claim without prejudice; and 4. denying as moot the motion to certify class. The Court said, "Plaintiff's TCPA suit relies on the contention that Defendant's fax was an 'unsolicited advertisement.' The TCPA does not impose liability on surveys that actually are surveys, and Defendant's fax in this case was in fact a survey. That it included participation incentives does not change that conclusion. The court will dismiss Plaintiff's federal claim. There are no remaining federal claims and liability for the transmission of a fax under statutory conversion is a novel argument, best addressed in state court. The court will decline supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff's statutory conversion claim will be dismissed without prejudice. Lastly, Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be denied as moot." The Plaintiff sues Defendant for violating the TCPA, and for statutory conversion. The Defendant sent a telephoned facsimile ("fax") to Plaintiff's veterinary office asking Plaintiff to complete a survey.[CC] EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shen Securities Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Bo Shen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXELA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RONALD COGBURN, and JAMES G. REYNOLDS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00691-D (N.D. Tex., March 23, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Exela securities from March 16, 2018, through March 16, 2020, inclusive. On March 16, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The 2017 10-K was signed by Defendants Cogburn and Reynolds. The 2017 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Cogburn and Reynolds attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated that accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes to the consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States ("U.S. GAAP") and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff contends that the Company's statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exela's previously issued financial statements for the twelve months ended December, 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, and the quarterly statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 contained numerous accounting errors, could not be relied upon, and required restatement; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Exela's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On March 16, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing that it would be postponing its earnings and conference call due to a delayed filing of the Company's Form 10-K for fiscal year 2019. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.0154 per share or over 8.3% to close at $0.17 per share on March 17, 2020, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Exela securities during the Class Period. Exela purports to operate as a location-agnostic global business process automation provider combining industry-specific and multi industry enterprise software and solutions worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com FAT BRANDS: Vignola Lawsuit Won't Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Adam Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 18-7469 PSG (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of FAT Brands, Inc. (FAT Brands) pursuant and/or traceable to FAT Brands' October 23, 2017 initial public stock offering." Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all present and former officers and directors of FAT Brands and any subsidiary thereof, members of such excluded persons' families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity which such excluded persons controlled or in which they have or had a controlling interest. The Court finds it unclear that aggregation of claims would result in reducing litigation costs or promoting efficiencies, given the potential difficulties of the knowledge inquiry required for establishing liability. The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased FAT Brands common stock pursuant to its October 23, 2017 initial public stock offering that seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.[CC] FEDEX GROUND: Colorado District Enters Show Cause Order in Bachanov ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREW BACHANOV, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-00025-PAB (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado directed Bachanov to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court takes up the matter sua sponte on the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The Court finds that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the Plaintiff's civil cover sheet states that the basis of jurisdiction is diversity, it is not a pleading that states a claim for relief under Rule 8. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The allegation does not establish diversity jurisdiction, given that Section 1332 has to do with the parties' citizenship, not whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Presumably, the Plaintiff seeks to establish the Court's jurisdiction through the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs states he brings the case as a Rule 23 class action. He brings the purported class action on behalf of all current or former local FedEx drivers who operated trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 pounds of greater and were not compensated for all overtime worked within the applicable statute of limitations. Given that both claims for relief are based on Colorado state wage laws, the Court finds that the class appears to be limited to those drivers subject to such state laws. Because the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to determine if minimal diversity exists and whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. Therefore, the District Court directed the Plaintiff to show cause, by Jan. 30, 2020, why the case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/sqBty1 from Leagle.com. Andrew Bachanov, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales -- bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC & Dustin Thomas Lujan -- wyoadvocate@gmail.com -- Dustin Thomas Lujan, Attorney at Law. FIRST SOLAR: Enters Into Settlement Agreement in Smilovits Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 18, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC. On January 6, 2020, First Solar, Inc. announced that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") to settle a putative class action litigation filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC. Pursuant to the MOU, among other things, the Company had agreed to pay a total of $350 million to settle the claims in the Class Action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, in exchange for mutual releases and dismissal with prejudice of the compliant upon court approval of the settlement. On February 13, 2020, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (with certain named plaintiffs on terms and conditions that are consistent with the MOU. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (i) the Company has contributed $350 million in cash to a settlement fund that will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and cash payments to members of the settlement class and (ii) the settlement class has agreed to release the Company, the other defendants named in the Class Action and certain of their respective related parties from any and all claims concerning, based on, arising out of, or in connection with the Class Action. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. The settlement, including such payment and release, is subject to court approval. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the settlement class will be provided notice of, and an opportunity to object to, the settlement at a fairness hearing to be held by the court to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved and whether the proposed order and final judgment should be entered. If the court approves the settlement and enters such order and final judgment, and such judgment is no longer subject to further appeal or other review, the settlement fund will be disbursed in accordance with a plan of allocation approved by the court and the release will be effective to all members of the settlement class. The settlement does not affect any claims asserted in Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS, or Bargar, et al. v. Ahearn, et al., No. CV2013-009938, both of which remain pending. First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar, Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. FITBIT INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Willis Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant Fitbit's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case, BARON WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01377-DMS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.). In May 2015, the Plaintiff purchased his first Fitbit device, a Fitbit Flex. He alleges he wore his Fitbit Flex for its intended purpose and in a manner consistent with its intended use, yet the band separated from the device, resulting in it falling off his wrist, multiple times. He returned his Fitbit Flex later that month and replaced it with a Fitbit Charge. The Plaintiff alleges he experienced the same issue with the Charge as he did with the Flex -- specifically, the wristband separated from the device and the device fell off his wrist. One year later, the Plaintiff returned his Fitbit Charge and replaced it with a Fitbit Charge HR. He alleges he again experienced the same issue. A few months later, he replaced his Fitbit Charge HR with a Fitbit Blaze. He alleges the Fitbit Blaze also fell off his wrist. Finally, one year later, the Plaintiff returned his Fitbit Blaze and replaced it with an upgraded edition of the Blaze. He alleges this device also fell off his wrist and was eventually lost. The Plaintiff alleges he purchased and replaced his Fitbit devices because of representations Defendant made about the devices being wearable and capable of tracking, monitoring, and storing his personal data. According to the Plaintiff, however, the devices were not wearable and because of the 'popping-off' problem, the devices were unable to track the Plaintiff's steps, calories burned, or heartrate. Upon purchasing his first Fitbit device, the Plaintiff created an account with Fitbit and registered his device. This sign-up process required Plaintiff to affirmatively accept Fitbit's Terms of Service agreement. Fitbit's Terms of Service includes an arbitration agreement, which requires that "any dispute arising out of the Terms of Service or the use of Fitbit's devices or services must be resolved by binding arbitration." The arbitration agreement further provides the American Arbitration Association will administer the arbitration under its Commercial Arbitration Rules and Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes. The Commercial Arbitration Rules require the arbitrator to decide threshold questions, including arbitrability. Based on these alleged facts, the Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against the Defendant. He asserts six causes of action: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (3) violation of the False Advertising Law; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of implied warranty; and (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Defendant now moves to enforce the arbitration agreement in the Terms of Service, which the Plaintiff opposes. The Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. He further argues the Court must determine the issue of enforceability. The Defendant contends the threshold questions of arbitrability -- including whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable -- must be decided by an arbitrator, not the Court, because the arbitration agreement delegates these gateway issues to an arbitrator. The Plaintiff challenges the validity of the entire arbitration agreement, not the specific delegation provision. The Plaintiff argues the Terms of Service agreement is unenforceable because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable for the following reasons: (1) the parties have unequal bargaining power, (2) the agreement is a "take-it or leave-it" contract, (3) the opt-out provision is unreasonable, (4) the agreement limits damages, (5) the agreement imposes a one-year statute of limitations, (6) the venue provision is confusing and one-sided, (7) the provision concerning small claims court limits consumers' rights, and (8) the lack of injunctive relief. Judge Sabraw holds that none of the Plaintiff's unconscionability arguments are directed specifically at the delegation provision. Because the Plaintiff failed to make any arguments specific to the delegation provision, and instead argued that the Terms of Service agreement as a whole is unconscionable under state law, the Judge need not consider that claim, because it is for the arbitrator to decide in light of the parties' clear and unmistakable delegation of that question. Accordingly, the Court concludes the merits of the Plaintiff's unconscionability arguments must be heard by an arbitrator. For these reasons, Judge Sabraw granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration. The Court stayed the litigation to permit an arbitrator to decide the questions of arbitrability, and then, if permissible to arbitrate the substantive claims. Within 14 days of the completion of the arbitration proceedings, the parties will jointly submit a report advising the Court of the outcome of the arbitration, and request to dismiss the case or vacate the stay. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/szGMVi from Leagle.com. Baron Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Scott Russell -- crussell@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan Thompson Sherman & Caudill, LLP & David Garth Jensen -- djensen@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill, LLP. Fitbit, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by David F. McDowell -- DMcDowell@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster. FLORES ROOFING: Sued by Morales Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Adencio Morales, Rigoberto Morales, Brayan Bravo, Agustin Roblero-Sanchez, and Rodrigo Genaro Ramos-Chavez, a/k/a Rodrigo Jenaro Ramos-Chavez, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. FLORES ROOFING, LLC and RODRIGO FLORES PATINO, Case No. 5:20-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C., March 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act for unpaid overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and a group of workers wages they were due at the overtime rate when the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs to perform hours worked in excess of 40 in the same workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay all promised wages when due on the regular scheduled payday for the Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA and the NCWHA. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform all tasks required. The Defendants are engaged in the roofing repair business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1828 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Phone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919) 821-1763 Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com FLYING FOOD: Ortiz Suit Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FLYING FOOD GROUP LLC and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV08073 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), seeks civil penalties for the Defendants' failure to properly pay their employees under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff asserts claim arising from the Defendants' failure to pay employees for all hours worked at the minimum wage; failure to provide legally compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to provide legally compliant rest periods and/or pay rest period premium wages; and failure to timely pay wages. The Plaintiff and the class of persons on whose behalf this action is filed are current, former and/or future employees of the Defendants, who worked, work, or will work for the Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees in California. Flying Food is a privately owned provider of exceptional meals for the world's premier airlines and leading retail brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. James Yoo, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 FREDA SALVADOR: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freda Salvador, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Freda Salvador, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01524 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Freda Salvador is a design led, female founded, and a female run footwear company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com FRESH EXPRESS: Brady BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Express Incorporated removed the case captioned as ANTHONY BRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRESH EXPRESS INCORPORATED, Case No. 2020CH01090, from the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 27, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01441 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act via the use of its biometric timekeeping system, which collected his (and putative class members') fingerprints without first: obtaining the putative class members' consent to use their biometrics; and providing written notice to the putative class members of the Defendant's use of biometrics. Fresh Express produces and distributes fresh-cut salad. The Company's products also include coleslaw, shreds, spinach, and leaf mixes. Fresh Express also provides recipes and kits.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William J. Dorsey, Esq. Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq. Michael L. Cioffi, Esq. David J. Oberly, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 776-2512 Facsimile: (312) 264-2430 E-mail: wdorsey@blankrome.com Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com Cioffi@BlankRome.com DOberly@BlankRome.com G4S SECURE: Court Denies Dismissal of Snell FCRA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lawrence O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JAMES SNELL, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00802-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.). In June 2009, Plaintiff James Snell commenced the putative class action against his former employer and a security company, Defendant G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Snell claims that the authorization form that G4S provided him to sign in order to perform employment-related background checks fails to satisfy the clear, conspicuous, and standalone requirements of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A). Contending that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish such statutory violations, G4S filed the instant Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). First, G4S argues that Snell fails to plead sufficient facts to show that its alleged violation of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) was willful. Second, G4S argues that Snell fails to allege sufficiently how the disclosure form is not clear and conspicuous. Willful Non-compliance Under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless, (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and (ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person. Snell attaches a copy of the disclosure form that he signed in October 2018 to show that it contains not only the disclosure information required by the FCRA, but also extraneous information regarding disclosure requirements under various state laws in violation of the standalone requirement under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Snell pleads that the violations of the FCRA were willful based on the clear statutory text, case law guidance, and regulatory guidance. Snell then cites to the plain language of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), stating that a document must consist solely of the disclosure, and informal opinion letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to show that it is unambiguous under the law that no extraneous information should be included in the FCRA disclosure and that G4S knowingly or recklessly violated the law. Based on these allegations, the Court is persuaded that Snell has sufficiently alleged plausible claims for violations of the FCRA, but G4S disagrees. Clear and Conspicuous Requirement of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) The Court then turns to G4S's 12(b)(6) challenge to the sufficiency of Snell's allegations of the clear and conspicuous requirement. Snell's first cause of action rests not only on G4S's alleged violation of the standalone requirement but also the clear and conspicuous requirement of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). The disclosure requirement at issue, creates a right to information by requiring prospective employers to inform job applicants that they intend to procure their consumer reports as part of the employment application process. More specifically, Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) requires employers who obtain a consumer report on a job applicant to provide the applicant with a clear and conspicuous disclosure' that they may obtain such a report the clear and conspicuous requirement in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, the standalone document requirement, before procuring the report. G4S argues that, in contrast to the disclosure document in Gilberg, Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019)), the disclosure form here is clear and conspicuous as a matter of law. The Court is not persuaded, however, for substantive and procedural reasons. Before turning to those reasons, the Court notes, however, that the Ninth Circuit has not decided on whether the clear and conspicuous requirement is a question of law, of fact, or of some combination of the two. Some district courts in our sister circuits have found conspicuousness of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) to be a question of law, but the Court is unaware of whether any other courts have concluded that clearness under the Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) is a question of law and it is questionable whether it should only be a question of law for courts to decide. The Court begins with a substantive analysis of the clearness requirement. Having reviewed and compared the disclosure form attached to the Complaint and the disclosure document in Gilberg, the Court finds the extraneous information concerning the disclosure requirements under state laws in both documents to be closely similar. If anything, G4S's disclosure form contains more extraneous and confusing information about disclosure requirements under California, Minnesota, and Oklahoma laws than the disclosure document in Gilberg. As Gilberg held, and as applicable here, the disclosure would confuse a reasonable reader because it combines federal and state disclosures. A reasonable consumer may easily be confused as to whether there is a distinction between a consumer report and an investigative consumer report, which the disclosure form does not explain. Such consumer may also be confused as to whether he is authorizing G4S to obtain his consumer report or investigative consumer report, or signing a release, or consenting to all of the foregoing. The Court finds the disclosure form here to be even less reasonably understandable than the disclosure form in Gilberg. By contrast, the disclosure form here is conspicuous. The title of the disclosure form, as well as the authorization statement, is bolded and capitalized such that Snell could see what he was signing. The font size and information are legible. For these reasons, the Court finds the disclosure form to be readily noticeable to the consumer. Nonetheless, because the disclosure form is not both clear and conspicuous, G4S has failed to satisfy the clear and conspicuous requirement of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). But even if the Court accepted G4S's argument and concluded that the disclosure form was clear and conspicuous, it cannot partially dismiss either of the two causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6) as it would be procedurally improper. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) doesn't permit piecemeal dismissals of parts of claims; the question at this stage is simply whether the complaint includes factual allegations that state a plausible claim for relief. Snell may maintain a valid claim for violation of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) if the allegations sufficiently show that G4S either violated the standalone requirement, clearness requirement, or conspicuousness requirement. It is G4S's obligation to satisfy all these requirements under the FCRA, so all that Snell is required to plead sufficiently here is a violation of one of the three requirements in order to maintain a valid claim against G4S under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). It follows that even if the disclosure form is clear and conspicuous, the Court cannot partially dismiss either of the two causes of action since Snell has sufficiently alleged a violation of the standalone requirement (as discussed in Section IV.A) to constitute a valid claim. The Court finds G4S's Motion to Dismiss to be unmeritorious. Snell has sufficiently stated a plausible claim that G4S knowingly or recklessly violated the standalone requirement, as well as the clear and conspicuous requirement, of the FCRA. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sawzocz from Leagle.com James Snell, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley - eric@kingsleykingsley.com - Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Walter L. Haines , United Employees Law Group, PC, 65 Pine Ave. #312 Long Beach, CA 90802 & Kelsey Szamet - kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com - Kingsley & Kingsley, APC. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Paul Rudin - arudin@grsm.com - Gordon & Rees LLP & Michael John Wright - mjwright@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. GC SERVICES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Kijek" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DONNA KIJEK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. e 2:20-cv-00408-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com GO TO DRA: Irons-Williams Sues in N.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Go To DRA LLC. The case is styled as Gloria A. Irons-Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Go To DRA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00616-CAB (N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Go To DRA utilizes modern technology, including TCPA compliant contact solutions, Artificial Intelligence, and proprietary skip-tracing solutions to recover more, for less.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Joseph S. Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com HALL MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Martinez Pending Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stayed the case, ERIKA MARTINEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HALL MANAGEMENT CORP., a California corporation; HALL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00343-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), pending class action settlement approval in Martinez v. Hall Management Corp., et. al., Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-19-101497. The Plaintiff will file a status report every 60 days, beginning from the date of the Court's Order, notifying the Court of the status of the state court proceedings. Failure to comply with the Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Q1J4H5 from Leagle.com. Erika Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W. Schmidt -- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC, Matthew Kevin Moen -- mmoen@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC & Paul K. Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC. Hall Management Corp., a California corporation & Hall Management Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented by Connie M. Parker, Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel & David H. Parker -- dp@pknwlaw.co -- Yohman, Parker, Kern, Nard and Wenzel. HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Defends Rodgers Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating the Company defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. Herbalife said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. INNOVATIVE GROWERS: Haymer Sues Over Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON HAYMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INNOVATIVE GROWERS EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. 2020L000253 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), seeks to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for its unauthorized collection, storage and use of biometrics in violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that he was "clocking in" using his fingerprints during his tenure of employment with the Defendant, which he left in November 2019. He asserts that if the Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues. Innovative Growers manufactures a full line of growing benches for commercial growers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Telephone: (630) 333-0333 E-mail: peter@l-a.law patrick@l-a.law - 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 INSURANCE OFFICE: Faces Power Securities Suit Over Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- WOODROW W. POWER, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf of those others similarly situated v. INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida Corporation, et al., Case No. CACE-20-003595 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 26, 2020), accuses the Defendant of engaging in a criminal and fraudulent enterprise and scheme to defraud shareholders of IOA through an illegal Ponzi scheme, which involves defrauding employees, independent sales agents and customers of IOA, in violation of Florida's securities law. The Plaintiff contends that this Ponzi scheme works by enticing fresh victims to buy IOA's stock at hugely inflated prices to pay for individuals, who IOA terminates or leave the Company on other terms. He adds that this fraudulent enterprise involves, in part, the systemic wrongful "acquiring" of large accounts by Defendant IOA through "stealing" the same from IOA Agents. The "stolen" account is generally an account which generates large profits for IOA and provides IOA the opportunity to add it to its "Book of Business" for purposes of artificially inflating IOA Group's stock price and hide IOA's true business health. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order requiring Defendants IOA Group, Sheldrick, and John Doe(s) to provide an accounting of all financial documentation to perform IOA and IOA Group valuations of their stock price to accurately calculate Plaintiffs investment into IOA Group's stock and for such other further relief. The Plaintiff purchased shares of the IOA Group's common stock directly pursuant to the materially false and/or misleading representations and incurred damages as a result. The Defendants include IOA GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, NUVIEW IRA, INC., a Florida Corporation, GRACE CHURCH OF GREATER ORLANDO, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, SHELDRICK, MCGEHEE & KOHLER, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JOHN HARROLD, a Florida Resident, WANDA HARROLD, a Florida Resident, ANTHONY GRIECO, a New Jersey Resident, MARK MANFRE, a Florida Resident, HEATH RITENOUR, a Florida Resident, JOHN K. RITENOUR, a Florida Resident, VALLI S. RITENOUR, a Florida Resident, ROB MOTLEY, a South Carolina Resident, BRUCE EADES, a Georgia Resident, JOHN WICK, a Florida Resident, JEFF LAGOS, a Florida Resident, TINA CHOINIERE, a Florida Resident, BRIAN MORAN, a Florida Resident, LISA QUINTERO, a Florida Resident, BETH SCHICK, a Florida Resident, GREGORY MASTERS, a Florida Resident THOMAS MEYERS a/k/a CHIP MEYERS, a Florida Resident, DON CLARK WHITTEN, a Florida Resident, GEORGE ANTHONY TATUM, a Florida Resident, JESS WRIGHT, a Florida Resident, STEVEN ROSENBLOOM, a Florida Resident, STEVEN SMITH, a Florida Resident, and JOHN DOE(S) an unknown person(s). The Defendants are doing business in the insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Lewis Farrow, Esq. Meera K. Koodie, Esq. FARROW LAW, P.A. 4801 S. University Drive, Suite 132 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 252-9818 Facsimile: (954) 252-9821 E-mail: jay@farrowlawfirm.com meera@farrowlawfirm.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Average Wholesale Price Suits Resolved --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) suits have been resolved. Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. The case brought by Illinois was settled after trial. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation. All other cases have been resolved. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Plan Participants Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan is pending. In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Contaminated Talc Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the court has denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit involving asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result. Plaintiffs are seeking damages. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Reversed --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed the district court's ruling in denying the motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchasers' case in the class action suit entitled, In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases. A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal of TRACLEER(R) Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class action suit related to TRACLEER(R) have appealed the district court's grant of the motion to dismiss. In 2017, the Company completed the acquisition of Actelion Ltd through an all cash tender offer in Switzerland for $280 per share, amounting to $29.6 billion, net of cash acquired. In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER(R). TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens Suit Set for June ---------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that trial in the contact lens related class action suit is scheduled for June 2020. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied in November 2019. Trial is scheduled for June 2020. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOTSENS INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jotsens, Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jotsens, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01737-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Jostens is an American manufacturer of memorabilia. The Company is primarily known for its production of yearbooks and class rings for various high schools and colleges, as well as championship rings for sports.[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 JP MORGAN CHASE: Wynn Sues Under TCPA Over Unsolicited Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiffany Wynn and Michael Rossi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-02493 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs bring the complaint to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited debt collection robocalls to the telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiffs assert that they never provided consent to be called by the Defendant, and that the Defendant's calls violated the TCPA because it placed these calls with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or a predictive dialer with the present capacity to function as an autodialer by generating random or sequential telephone numbers and dialing those numbers. Plaintiff Tiffany Wynn is a citizen of the State of Florida. Plaintiff Michael Rossi is a citizen of the State of New Jersey. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is a multinational investment bank and financial services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com JPMORGAN CHASE: O'Toole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah O'Toole, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendant for overtime work for which she and others did not receive overtime premium pay. The Plaintiff says she worked in excess of 40 hours per week for which she was not compensated at the statutory rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to pay her overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Fraud Investigator and performed related activities for the Defendant in Duval County, Florida. The Defendant was, and continues to be, a publicly-owned international banking institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com KLOECKNER METALS: Lumpkins Sues Over Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY EARL LUMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. KLOECKNER METALS CORP., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2020CH02587 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for persons injured by its conduct. The Plaintiff contends that using biometric enabled technology, the Defendant is capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track their time at work. The Defendant is an independent distributor of steel and metal products with operations in the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com tkingsbury@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com KNIGHT DENTAL: Faces Henry Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knight Dental Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as Nicole Henry, On behalf of all other similarly situated v. Does 1-20, Knight Dental Corporation, and Pacific Dental Services LLC, Case No. 34-2020-00276518-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 28, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kent L. Bradbury. The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Knight Dental was founded in 1974. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of dentures, artificial teeth, and orthodontic appliances. Pacific Dental operates as a dental support company. Pacific Dental provides supported autonomy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent L. Bradbury, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY 3200 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 300 Roseville, CA 95661-4238 Telephone: (916) 960-2080 E-mail: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has preliminarily approved the settlement in the class action suit entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions against the Company and several former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime"). One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount to be paid by the Company. On October 2, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The amounts payable by the Company are covered by an insurance policy. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. LORAC COSMETICS: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorac Cosmetics, LLC. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lorac Cosmetics, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01741-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Lorac Cosmetics manufactures cosmetics and skincare products. The company offers its products 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 MANDARICH LAW: 9th Cir. Vacates Final Judgment in David FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARLA MARIE DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, a California limited liability partnership; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-15702 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the final judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award in favor of Mandarich and associated Defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In the putative class action, Davis alleges that Mandarich violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when, in the course of debt-collection litigation brought against her in California state court, it sent her a declaration that purported to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 98 but was in fact inconsistent with that provision. According to Davis, Mandarich's conduct violated the FDCPA because debt collectors may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt, and may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. The Ninth Circuit finds that there is a serious question whether Davis has adequately alleged an injury in fact -- or whether she could do so if given leave to amend her complaint. Mandarich, however, did not raise the issue until its brief on appeal, offering just over two pages on the question. Because standing affects the Ninth Circuit's subject-matter jurisdiction, it is not subject to waiver or forfeiture. But since the briefing on standing is so limited, the Ninth Circuit concludes that the better course would be to allow the district court to consider the issue in the first instance. The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court to determine whether Davis has Article III standing. If the court answers that question in the negative, it should dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. If the court answers that question in the affirmative, it may reinstate the judgment or conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate, including revisiting any other issues raised by the parties. In particular, the court may revisit Davis' argument that the Forward Flow Agreement did not convey a right to compel arbitration because the Forward Flow Agreement excluded the use of arbitration for collection of debt or otherwise in connection with the Accounts purchased. The parties will bear their own costs. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/KC9hbR from Leagle.com. MARK S. RICCIARDI: Faces Walsh FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark S. Ricciardi, Esq., P.C. The case is styled as Walter Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mark S. Ricciardi, Esq., P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-01482 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mark S. Ricciardi, Esq., is a firm serving Syosset, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com MCGOVERN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Coraccio Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA CORACCIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MCGOVERN AUTO GROUP CORP SERVICES, INC. and MATT MCGOVERN, Case No. 20-0571G (Mass. Super., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against McGovern Auto and its president and treasurer, Matt McGovern, for their failure to pay overtime wages, as required by state law. The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current employees of the Defendants employed as service advisors. These employees work in excess of 40 hours per week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours in violation of Massachusetts law, the lawsuit says. McGovern Auto is a company operating at least nine car dealerships across Massachusetts, which sells vehicles and related products and services. McGovern Auto employs various sales employees, including auto salespeople and service advisors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 50 Congress Street, Suite 540 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617)338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com MDL 2795: Deal in CenturyLink Securities Suit Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification in IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614, 17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943, 17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562, 18-1572, 18-1565, 18-1573, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.). The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of settlement set forth therein, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Agreement, including the Long-Form Notice, Email Notice, Bill Notice, Postcard Notice, Publication Notice, and Claim Form, attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibits 2-7 are preliminarily approved. The Court appointed Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. CenturyLink and the Settlement Administrator will notify the Class Members of the settlement in the manner specified under Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement. The Class Members who want to receive an award under the Settlement Agreement must accurately complete and deliver a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator no later than 151 calendar days after the entry of the Order. Any Class Member who has not submitted a timely written exclusion request, must file objections to the Settlement Administrator no later 151 calendar days after the entry of the Order. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as a class of all persons or entities in the United States who are identified by CenturyLink as a residential or small business customer and who, during the Class Period, had an account for local or long distance telephone, internet, or television services with one or more of the Operating Companies. The Settlement Class Representatives are conditionally certified as the class representatives to implement the Parties' settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The law firms of Zimmerman Reed LLP, O'Mara Law Group, and Geragos & Geragos APC are conditionally appointed as the Settlement Class Counsel. Judge Davis ordered that any actions or proceedings in any court in the United States involving any Released Claims asserted by any Releasing Parties, except any matters necessary to implement, advance, or further the approval of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing and issuance of any Final Order and Judgment. All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines in this Action are stayed and suspended until further notice from the Court, except for such actions as are necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement and the Order. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the matter on Aug. 27, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. The Plaintiffs' motion in support of final approval of the settlement will be filed no later than 14 calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing. The Agreement and the Order provide for the following timeline dates and deadlines related to the provision of notice and the Final Approval Hearing: a. Last day for CenturyLink to provide the Settlement Order Administrator the Class Member list - 21 days after entry of the Settlement Agreement b. Last day for the Settlement Administrator to publish the Settlement Website and begin operating a toll-free telephone line, and email address and P.O. Box to accept inquiries from Settlement Class Members - 45 days after entry of the Order c. Last day for the Settlement Administrator to begin Publication of Notice Plan - 45 days after entry of the Order d. Settlement Administrator provides Email Notice to Class Members that are former CenturyLink customers - 45 days after entry of the Settlement Order e. Settlement Administrator provides Postcard Notice to Settlement Class Members that are former CenturyLink customers - 45 days after entry of the Settlement Order f. CenturyLink starts billing and providing Notice to Settlement Class Members who are current CenturyLink customers - starts more than 45 days after entry of Order g. Last day for Settlement Class Counsel to file motion in support of Motion for Fees, Cost and Expense Award - 130 days after entry of the Order h. Last day for Settlement Members to file Claim Forms to object or request exclusion from the class - 151 calendar Class days after the entry Order i. Last day for Settlement Administrator CenturyLink to provide Settlement Class Counsel declarations regarding proof of notice - 14 days before before Final Approval Hearing j. Last day for Class Counsel to file brief in support of Order for Settlement Final Approval - 14 days before Final Approval Hearing A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/nY7dpb from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jared Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com -- GERAGOS & GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francois Michel Blaudeau -- Francois@southermedlaw.com -- Southern Institute for Medical &Legal Affairs LLC, Hart L. Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James McDonough, III -- Jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, Lori G. Feldman -- lfeldman@zlk.com -- Geragos & Geragos, pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- GERAGOS & GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Mark M. O'Mara, O'Mara Law Group, Michelle J. Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., & Timothy R. Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC. Defendant's Primary Outside Counsel, Defendant, represented by David M. Aafedt -- daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, David A. Vogel -- dvogel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP -- Library, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com â€“ Winthrop & Weinstine, PA. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Russell Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as CASTINE RUSSELL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0001489 (Filed Jan. 29, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2020. The complaint asserts claims arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. Medline is a private American healthcare company based in Northfield, Illinois. The Company manufactures and distributes medical supplies.[BN] Defendant Medline is represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. Jannine E. Kranz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310 553 0308 Facsimile: 310 553 5583 E-mail: sgroode@littler.com jkranz@littler.com MGM RESORTS: Faces Metz Suit in Northern District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MGM Resorts International. The case is captioned as Adam Metz and Kaleia Pree, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGM Resorts International, Case No. 3:20-cv-01483-JCS (N.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero. MGM Resorts is an American global hospitality and entertainment company operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Detroit, Mississippi, Maryland, and New Jersey. The Company's properties include Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, MGM Grand, and Park MGM.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Lee Rudd, Esq. Ariel S. Harman-Holmes, Esq. THE RUDD LAW FIRM 4650 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 205 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 663-0705 Facsimile: (310) 359-0258 E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawpc.com arielharman.law@gmail.com MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Horne Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN V. HORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2:20-cv-00402-KJD-DJA (D. Nev., Feb. 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to secure the Plaintiff's and proposed class members' personally identifiable information. MGM publicly acknowledged on February 19, 2020, that in the summer of 2019, an individual gained unauthorized access to MGM's computer systems and downloaded PII associated with more than 10.6 million guests. The PII stolen was highly sensitive and included names, addresses, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, military identification numbers, phone numbers, e-mails and dates of birth for guests who stayed at an MGM property through 2017. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members will be required to purchase credit and identity monitoring services to alert them of potential misappropriation of their identities and to combat risk of further identity theft. At a minimum, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered compensable damages because they will be forced to incur the cost of a monitoring service which is a reasonable and necessary step to prevent and mitigate future loss. Mr. Horne is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In December 13, 2017, he stayed at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is owned, operated, and managed by MGM. In connection with this reservation, he provided MGM with PII, including his name, address, and driver's license number. MGM is a publicly traded global entertainment and hospitality company that owns, operates, and manages hotels, casinos, and resorts, including the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino located in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104 Las Vegas, NE 89117 Telephone: 702 330 4505 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Henry Kusjanovic, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com hkusjanovic@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com achristina@lowey.com MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Faces Sklair Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Sklair, Sterling Rettke, Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02495 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is a presidential campaign officially launched on November 24, 2019.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Benjamin Berman, Esq. Ilann M. Maazel, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 600 5th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 763-5000 Fax: (212) 763-5001 Email: dberman@ecbalaw.com imaazel@ecbalaw.com MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Wood Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for FOs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Wood, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02489 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020), seeks to recover, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, unpaid overtime compensation for the Plaintiff, who has worked as exempt-classified Campaign Field Organizers or similarly titled positions for the Defendant. According to the complaint, FOs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Bloomberg's policy was to uniformly classify FOs as exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions and therefore to not pay FOs overtime wages. The primary duties of FOs do not fall under any of the exemptions to the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay FOs, including the Plaintiff, the overtime wages they have earned and to which they are entitled by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who worked as a FO for the Defendant. Defendant Bloomberg is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: jms@outtengolden.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Ste. 200W Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-847-4400 Facsimile: 202-847-4410 Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com MINISTRY OF SUPPLY: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ministry of Supply Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ministry of Supply Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01742-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ministry of Supply is a Boston-based high performance business wear men's and women's fashion brand launched in 2012 and founded by former Massachusetts Institute of Technology students using some of the same temperature regulating material as NASA astronauts in their clothing.[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 MRS BPO: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in Oleson ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OLESON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MRS BPO LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00410-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Ellis Suit Seeks Court to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES ELLIS and DARRYL ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR COOPER, Case No.: 19-cv-661 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes: Class I: "all natural persons in the United States of America, whose residential mortgage loan servicing rights were transferred from PUF to Nationstar, and to whom PUF mailed a 'Notice of Transfer of Servicing Rights' letter stating that the effective date of the transfer of servicing rights would be February 1, 2019, fewer than 15 days prior to February 1, 2019"; Class II: "all natural persons in the United States of America, whose residential mortgage loan servicing rights were transferred from PUF to Nationstar, and to whom PUF mailed a 'Notice of Transfer of Servicing Rights' letter stating that the effective date of the transfer of servicing rights would be February 1, 2019, and to whom Nationstar mailed a 'Notice of Transfer of Servicing Rights' letter stating that the effective date of the transfer of servicing rights would be any day other than February 1, 2019"; and Class III: "all natural persons in the United States of America, whose residential mortgage loan servicing rights were transferred to Nationstar, and who had executed an electronic funds transfer authorization with their prior servicer, and from whom Nationstar initiated electronic funds transfers that were inconsistent with the prior existing electronic funds transfer authorization executed with the prior servicer." This case arises from the transfer of servicing of Plaintiffs' home mortgage to Nationstar in connection with Nationstar's acquisition of Plaintiffs' former mortgage servicer, Pacific Union Financial, LLC. Nationstar Mortgage offers mortgage services.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse Fruchter, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com NAVITUS HEALTH: Phillips Suit Seeks Conditional & Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANN PHILLIPS, and BRITTANI RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-1563 (E.D. Wisc.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying these Classes pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): Collective On-Call Class: all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who worked an on-call shift but were not paid at their respective hourly rate for all hours worked during the on-call shift between October 3, 2015 and December 31, 2019"; Collective Break Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who were not paid at their respective hourly rate for breaks of less than 30 minutes between October 3, 2015 and December 31, 2019"; Collective Pre/Post Shift Work Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who performed work for Navitus in a call center and logged in to and out of Navitus’ phone system while performing such work between October 3, 2015 and December 31, 2019"; Collective Bonus Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who received a bonus payment that was not incorporated into their respective regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating overtime pay between October 3, 2015 and December 31, 2019"; and 2. certifying these Rule 23 Classes: Wisconsin On-Call Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who worked an on-call shift but were not paid at their respective hourly rate for all hours worked during the on-call shift between October 3, 2016 and December 31, 2019"; Wisconsin Break Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who were not paid at their respective hourly rate for breaks of less than 30 minutes between October 3, 2016 and December 31, 2019"; Wisconsin Pre/Post Shift Work Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who performed work for Navitus in a call center and logged in to Navitus' phone system while performing such work between October 3, 2016 and December 31, 2019"; Wisconsin Bonus Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who received a bonus payment that was not incorporated into their respective regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating overtime pay between October 3, 2016 and December 31, 2019"; Wisconsin Stipend Class: "all non-exempt, hourly employees of Navitus who worked an on-call shift but did not receive the agreed-upon stipend for working the on-call shift between October 3, 2016 and December 31, 2019" Navitus Health provides health care management solutions.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Facsimile: 414-271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Lynn M. Stathas, Esq. Christopher K. Schuele, Esq. REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2018 Madison, WI 53701-2018 Telephone: 608 229-2200 Facsimile: 608 229-2100 E-mail: lstathas@reinhartlaw.com cschuele@reinhartlaw.com NCAA: Sued by Strawbridges for Ignoring Student-Athletes' Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOM AND DONNA STRAWBRIDGE, Personal Representatives of the estate of Daniel Strawbridge, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01212-ER ((E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2020), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Lock Haven University. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Daniel Strawbridge and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes, according to the complaint. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Daniel Strawbridge experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Daniel Strawbridge and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, the Plaintiffs aver. As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, Daniel Strawbridge and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit says. As such, the Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene R. Egdorff, Esq. Alex Barlow, Esq. James B. Hartle, Esq. SHRADER & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 782-0000 Facsimile: (713) 571-9605 E-mail: gene@shraderlaw.com Barlow@shraderlaw.com Jim@shraderlaw.com NETGEAR INC: Says Settlement Discussions Underway ------------------------------------------------- NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has granted the Parties' stipulation to stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary approval for classwide settlement in the consolidated class action suit. On February 6, 2018, the company announced that the Board of Directors had unanimously approved the pursuit of a separation of its smart camera business, Arlo, from NETGEAR (the "Separation") to be effected by way of an initial public offering ("IPO") and spin-off ("the Spin-Off"). On December 31, 2018, the company completed the Spin-Off of Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo"), a majority owned subsidiary and reporting segment of NETGEAR at the time. Between January 9 and February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits. The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not presently named in the federal action. Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants’ motions to stay the state court cases. On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome of the federal case. The case will now proceed only in federal court. On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019. The motion is set for hearing on December 5, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of the federal action. On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a hearing on the defendants; motion to dismiss, and on December 19, 2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend. The Parties are currently discussing settlement. On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary approval for classwide settlement. NETGEAR said, "It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from these matters." NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996. OASIS LEGAL: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Davis Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LIZZIE DAVIS; PAMELA DAVIS; DENNIS GREEN; JOHNNY MOODY; JOHN SUBER; and SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC; and OASIS LEGAL FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV 317-022 (S.D. Ga.), Judge Dudley H. Bowen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action have asserted claims under the Georgia Payday Lending Act ("PLA") and the Georgia Industrial Loan Act ("GILA"). The Plaintiffs were personal injury plaintiffs in the State of Georgia who had entered into what even the Court has referred to as "loan agreements" with Defendant Oasis. Oasis refers to the subject agreements as "Nonrecourse Purchase Agreements." Pursuant to the Agreements, the Plaintiffs received money, in amounts of $3,000 or less, to pay for personal expenses while they pursued their personal injury claims against third parties. They were obligated to repay the money through any damages recovery from their personal injury claims. The amount owed to Oasis upon recovery was on a graduated basis dependent upon the time it took for resolution of the personal injury claim plus certain fees. If a plaintiff recovered nothing through the personal injury claim, he or she had no obligation to repay Oasis. The operative complaint in the case is the First Amended and Recast Class Action Complaint filed in state court on March 30, 2017. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the named Plaintiffs repaid Oasis at an annual percentage rate in excess of 100%. They allege that the Agreements therefore violate the PLA and GILA. On May 5, 2017, Oasis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based upon venue, forum non conveniens, statute of limitations, and a class action waiver in the Agreements. The Court concluded that the forum selection clause and class action waiver in the Agreements were unenforceable as against Georgia public policy. Oasis appealed the decision. While the appeal was pending before the Eleventh Circuit, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC. The Ruth case also involved personal injury plaintiffs who had entered into "financing agreements" with a litigation financing company, Cherokee Funding. Similar to the case at bar, the Ruth plaintiffs were provided funds for personal expenses, the repayment of which was contingent upon the success of their personal injury lawsuits. The Ruth plaintiffs similarly asserted that the financing agreements violated the Georgia PLA and GILA. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Ruth complaint, holding that the financing agreements did not involve "loans" because repayment was contingent upon successful resolution of the plaintiffs' personal injury lawsuits. Thus, the PLA and GILA did not apply to the financing agreements. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that an agreement that involves such a contingent and limited obligation of repayment is not a 'contract requiring repayment,' as those words are commonly and ordinarily understood in the context of the law of usury. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's Order denying Oasis's motion to dismiss and remanded the matter. On Dec. 19, 2019, Oasis filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings contending that the Ruth case forecloses the Plaintiffs' Georgia PLA and GILA claims. The Plaintiffs have opposed the motion, arguing that their case may be saved by a Second Amended and Recast Class Action Complaint, which they now seek leave to file. Judge Bowens conclude that the Ruth decision forecloses the Plaintiffs' claims under the PLA and GILA in their First Amended Complaint and the PLA claim in their proposed Second Amended Complaint. The District Court must note, however, the passage quoted by the Eleventh Circuit in this case regarding public policy. The Eleventh Circuit observed that it is the duty of all courts of justice to keep their eye steadily up on the interests of the public, and when they find an action is founded up on a claim injurious to the public to give no countenance or assistance in foro civili. In the case, the Georgia Supreme Court may have abdicated that responsibility in the Ruth case when it failed to find any meaningful distinction between a contract requiring repayment under the GILA and an agreement pursuant to which funds are advanced to be repaid under the PLA. Nevertheless, the District Court will apply Ruth as it must. Upon the foregoing, Judge Bowen granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The Clerk is directed to close the case, terminating all deadlines and motions, and enter judgment in the Defendants' favor. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/zLBKqU from Leagle.com. ONECOIN LTD: Alternative Means of Service in Berdeaux Partly Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONALD BERDEAUX and CHRISTINE GRABLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ONECOIN LTD.; RUJA IGNATOVA, KONSTANTIN IGNATOV; SEBASTIAN GREENWOOD; MARK SCOTT; IRINA ANDREEVA DILINSKA; DAVID PIKE; and NICOLE J. HUESMANN, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-4074 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for alternative means of service of Defendant OneCoin and three individual Defendants and officers of OneCoin -- Ruja Ignatova, Sebastian Greenwood, and Irina Andreeva Dilinska. The Court addresses the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for alternative means of service of OneCoin and the three individual Defendants and officers of OneCoin -- Ruja Ignatova, Sebastian Greenwood, and Irina Andreeva Dilinska -- whom the Plaintiffs have sued in a putative class action for allegedly defrauding investors in a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme. On Aug. 23, 2019, the Court stayed proceedings until all the Defendants have been served. The Plaintiffs moved for alternative means of service on Oct. 1, 2019, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). On Nov. 1, 2019, the Court denied their motion without prejudice. It found that the Plaintiffs had not met the requirements for alternative means of service -- in particular, the Plaintiffs had not (1) provided factual support that they had taken reasonable steps to attempt to serve the unserved Defendants, or (2) shown that the proposed means of service would meet the requirements of due process. The Plaintiffs have now renewed their motion under Rules 4(f)(3) and 4(e)(1). Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted adequate factual support showing that they have made a diligent search to find and serve the unserved Defendants, thus curing the first defect the Court identified in its previous order. The Judge also notes that Rule 4(f)(3) is applicable to OneCoin: OneCoin is located in the United Arab Emirates, and the UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. The Judge is only persuaded, however, that the Plaintiffs' proposed service methods as to OneCoin and Ignatova meet the requirements of due process. The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted adequate factual support that OneCoin has a registered office and headquarters in Dubai. Moreover, in spite of the fact that OneCoin's website is no longer operational as of Nov. 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs have also shown that OneCoin has various "related entities" promoting its brand and product. The Judge thus authorizes service of OneCoin by (a) United States International Registered First Class Mail to its Dubai office, (b) email to its onecoin.eu addresses and the addresses of the three related entities, and (c) message to its and related entities' social media accounts. The most recent evidence the Plaintiffs have submitted shows that Ignatova used a onecoin.eu email account in October 2016. In addition to the fact that was over three years ago, because the onecoin.eu website is no longer operational, the Court is skeptical that the associated email address continues to be operational. The fact that OneCoin still owns the domain name, as the Plaintiffs point out, does not persuade the Court otherwise. Many entities and individuals own domain names that have no operational servers behind them. The Plaintiffs also propose messaging Ignatova's social media accounts, but they offer no proof that those accounts are real. Nonetheless, the Court will authorize service of Ignatova by (a) United States International Registered First Class Mail to the Dubai headquarters with directions that the materials be forwarded to her, (b) message to her social media accounts, and (c) email to her onecoin.eu address, with the added requirement that the Plaintiffs must notify the Court, in writing, whether the email bounced, i.e., whether Plaintiffs received an automated return message that the email could not be delivered. As for Dilinska, the Plaintiffs attempt to prove that she has used a onecoin.eu email account, but cite only to their own allegations in the First Amended Complaint as evidence of that use. The Court is not obligated, as on a motion to dismiss, to take the Plaintiffs allegations as true. The Plaintiffs need to present evidence. Thus, the Court does not authorize the same alternative means of service for Dilinska (whom the Plaintiffs represent is also a fugitive from justice) as it does for Ignatova, unless Plaintiffs can provide evidence that Dilinska has used the onecoin.eu account. The Plaintiffs' evidence regarding Greenwood also falls short. They offer no evidence that the proposed email addresses for Greenwood belong to him, again relying solely on their own complaint's allegations. Nor do they offer any evidence that messaging the proposed social media accounts is likely to reach Greenwood. For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service. The Plaintiffs may effect service upon Defendants OneCoin and Ignatova using the means proposed in the Plaintiffs' motion papers. The Plaintiffs must notify the Court in writing whether they received a sender-return error for Ignatova. Service of Ignatova will not be considered proper unless no such error is received. Similarly, if International Registered Mail allows tracking of the package, the Plaintiffs must post proof of delivery to ECF once it has been effected. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to use alternative means of service against Dilinska and Greenwood without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/MqbVWS from Leagle.com. Donald Berdeaux, Individually, Lead Plaintiff, represented by William Fields, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Donald Berdeux, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by William Fields, Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Christine Grablis, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Fields, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Michael Louis Braunstein, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Konstantin Ignatov, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Harris Lichtman, Law Offices of Jeffrey Lichtman & Jeffrey Benson Einhorn, Law Offices of Jeffrey Lichtman. Mark Scott, Defendant, represented by Wendy Helene Schwartz -- wschwartz@binderschwartz.com -- Binder & Schwartz LLP & Lindsay A. Bush -- lbush@binderschwartz.com -- Binder & Schwartz LLP. David Pike, Defendant, represented by Martin R. Raskin, Raskin & Raskin, P.A. Nicole J. Huesmann, Defendant, represented by Bradley A. Silverman, Hamilton, Miller & Brithisel LLP. ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Faces Fenwick Suit Over Violations of TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JALINE FENWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY INSTITUTE, PLLC, Case No. CACE-20-003728 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing consists of sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase goods and/or services. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and proposed Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. The Defendant offers rehabilitation services, including Platelet-Rich-Plasma and Adult Mesenchymal Stem cell therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 5 15 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 40 1 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@biraldolaw.com PANARIUM KISSENA: Luo Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JING FANG LUO and SHUANG QIU HUANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PANARIUM KISSENA INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03642-WFK-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to LUO Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2. appointing themselves as class representatives; 3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel; 4. permitting them to circulate a class action notice by 1direct mail to the class members; and 5. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Defendants include PANARIUM INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BOULANGERIE DE FAY DA INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, PATISSERIE DE FAY DA, LLC d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, LE PETIT PAIN INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA SKY VIEW CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, LA PAN MIETTE INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA (QUEENS) CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA MOTT ST., INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FEI DAR, CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, LE PAIN SUR LE MONDE INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA LLC d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, CHI WAI CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, PHADARIAN INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA MAIN STREET CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, TORTA DI FAY DA INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA PATISSERIE (BELL BLVD) CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, NICPAT CAFÉ INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA MANUFACTURING CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA HOLDING CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA HOLDING GEN 2 CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, HAN CHIEH CHOU, and KELLEN CHOW.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Class John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com PG&E CORP: Accord over 2017 and 2018 Wildfires Okayed ----------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Bankruptcy Court has entered an order granting PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's motion to approve the Restructuring Support Agreement dated December 6, 2019 with the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (TCC), the Consenting Fire Claimant Professionals and the Shareholder Proponents, which potentially resolves all wildfire-related claims relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire (other than subrogated insurance claims and Public Entity Wildfire Claims) through the Chapter 11 process. As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) were aware of approximately 100 complaints on behalf of at least 4,200 plaintiffs related to the 2018 Camp fire, nine of which sought to be certified as class actions. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2018 Camp fire, which is currently stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, included claims under multiple theories of liability, including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, malice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2018 Camp fire. The plaintiffs sought damages and remedies that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, establishment of a class action medical monitoring fund, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility were aware of approximately 750 complaints on behalf of at least 3,800 plaintiffs related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, five of which sought to be certified as class actions. These cases were coordinated in the San Francisco County Superior Court. As of the Petition Date, the coordinated litigation was in the early stages of discovery. A trial with respect to the Atlas fire was scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires included claims under multiple theories of liability, including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance and negligence. This litigation, including the trial date with respect to the Atlas fire, currently is stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The plaintiffs sought damages and remedies that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. On December 19, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's motion to approve the TCC RSA. PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California, the United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Conditional Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TAMMIE WALK AND JUDITH ESTRADA on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY CENTER, SC AND JOHN A. KOTIS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:19-cv-05422 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion for stage-one conditional certification and notice to putative class members. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plastic & Reconstructive is a surgical specialty dedicated to the reconstruction and restoration of appearance and function of face and body parts.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com POCH PERSONNEL: Samuels Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Poch Personnel, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as VIRGINIA SAMUELS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POCH PERSONNEL, INC., a Michigan corporation dba TRILLIUM STAFFING SOLUTIONS; POCH STAFFING, INC. a Michigan corporation dba TRILLIUM STAFFING dba TRILLIUM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES; MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation dba TRILLIUM DRIVERS; TRILLIUM DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No: 34-2020-00272496, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 28, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00212 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims for failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest periods, and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses in violation of California Labor Code. The Defendants provide staffing services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq. Allison S. Hyatt, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. MEDINA McKELVEY LLP 983 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com allison@medinamckelvey.com tim@medinamckelvey.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arnold Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charlene Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-00014-NKM (W.D. Va., March 20, 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: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDAN LAW, LLC 600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: (443) 326-6011 Fax: (410) 653-9061 Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com PRIME NOW LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Mabanta Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO MABANTA, on behalf of himself and all others that are similarly situated v. PRIME NOW LLC, a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1-50, nclusive, Case No. CGC-20-583296 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are the individuals, who perform shopping, purchasing and delivering groceries to the Defendants' customers by utilizing a mobile application to shop, purchase and sometimes deliver groceries to the homes and businesses of the Defendants' customers. The Defendants are in the business of delivering a variety of groceries, household items and other consumer goods from various grocery stores, including Whole Foods, Pet Food Express, Bristol Farms, and other local third party stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Burton, Esq. Josue Aparicio, Esq. HERSH & HERSH 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite San Francisco, CA 94102-6316 Telephone: (415) 441-5544 PRIVATEER EVOLUTION: Faces Braun Stockholder Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Privateer Evolution, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Deborah R. Braun and Dr. Nader Noorian v. Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC (Defendants) and Tilray, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Case No. 2020-0137 (Del. Ch., Feb. 27, 2020). The case is a verified stockholder class action and derivative complaint for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with downstream merger involving Privateer Holdings, Tilray's majority stockholder. Privateer is doing business in the legal cannabis industry. Tilray is a producer of medical cannabis.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gorris FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Faces Bradford Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Technical Security Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as PATRICK BRADFORD, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL SECURITY SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; REYES, SEGIO RMN, AN INDIVIDUAL; and DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20583328 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 28, 2020). A management conference will be held on July 29, 2020, at Civic Center Courthouse Room 610, says the Court. Professional Technical provides technical security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 425 2nd St., No. 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone Number (424) 234-3747 Email zach@crosnerlegal.com PROPETRO HOLDING: Amended Complaint Filed in Logan Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 18, 2020, that an amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit entitled, Richard Logan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (Case No. 7:19-CV-217) On or about January 31, 2020, Boca Raton Firefighters' and Police Pension Fund ("Boca Raton") filed a shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors (the "Boca Raton Defendants"). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. The claims include (i) breaches of fiduciary duties, (ii) unjust enrichment and (iii) contribution. Boca Raton did not quantify any alleged damages in its complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Boca Raton seeks various forms of relief, including (i) damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Boca Raton Defendants' alleged misconduct, (ii) punitive damages and (iii) equitable relief in the form of improvements to the Company's governance and controls. On or about February 13, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje Administration A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System, and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, filed an amended class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in the previously-disclosed action captioned Richard Logan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (Case No. 7:19-CV-217), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation, cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves customers in North America. The company is based in Midland, Texas. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Replace Named Plaintiff Wilson Allowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUDY WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-11960 (WJM) (D. N.J.), Chief Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Wilson's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called her on her cell phone numerous times using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") seeking to collect on a debt. The Plaintiff claims that she does not owe a debt to the Defendant, is not a customer of the Defendant, and has never provided the Defendant with consent to call her. The Plaintiff's class action complaint alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of autodialing consumers who have not consented to be called by the Defendant. The initial Complaint was filed on July 23, 2018. The Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as a matter of right on Aug. 31, 2018. On Sept. 10, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Dec. 17, 2018, Judge William J. Martini denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety. After an initial Rule 16 conference was scheduled but before it was held, the Defendant filed a motion to stay and/or bifurcate discovery. It argued that the Court should hold discovery in abeyance while the FCC was evaluating certain administrative questions relating to an ATDS, or in the alternative, that discovery should be limited to the question of the Plaintiff's consent to be called. On Aug. 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Falk denied the Defendant's motion to stay or bifurcate and directed the parties submit a joint discovery plan. In addition, on July 3, 2019, the Defendant filed, before District Judge Martini, a motion for reconsideration of His Honor's Dec. 17, 2018 Opinion and Order that denied its motion to dismiss -- the Defendant's contention was that intervening Supreme Court authority warranted reconsideration of the decision on the motion to dismiss. On Sept. 3, 2019, Judge Martini denied the motion for reconsideration. On Sept. 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered an initial scheduling order. Discovery is open through March 18, 2020. Any motions to amend pleadings were to be filed by Oct. 31, 2019. Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, filed on Oct. 18, 2019, less than a month after the initial scheduling order was entered and prior to the Oct. 31, 2019, deadline. The motion to amend seeks to substitute out the named Plaintiff, Ms. Wilson, and replace her with two new Plaintiffs: Kenneth Street and William Wolf. The Plaintiff's counsel states that the reason for the substitution is that Ms. Wilson is ill, and is suffering from a serious and extended illness, that her condition has deteriorated, and that her health prevents her from serving as a class representative in the case. The Plaintiff claims that both substitute plaintiffs advance the same basic claims as she does: that they were called by Quest, did not owe Quest a debt, and did not consent to be called with either an ATDS or pre-recorded voice. The Plaintiff does not seek to drop her case, but rather is only seeking to be substituted out as lead plaintiff. She claims that the case is in the early stages, discovery is still open for some time, and that there is no prejudice from an early amendment. The Defendant's primary opposition is that the Plaintiff's motion is procedurally improper. Specifically, it contends that she should not be permitted to amend the complaint via Rule 15 to substitute new lead plaintiffs, but rather, should first be required to make a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, and then presumably the two new plaintiffs should start a new action. The Defendant takes this position because it wants to retain the right to move for costs and fees associated with any dismissal. It also claims that the motion is prejudicial, delayed, and made in bad faith. Magistrate Judge Falk holds that judicial efficiency and effective case management are matters that can be considered in deciding whether amendment should be allowed. While Mullin v. Balicki has a substantially distinguishable factual scenario from the case, the decision nevertheless reaffirmed the liberality with which amendment should be allowed in the interest of justice. In the instant case, despite any delay that would result from adding the new plaintiffs, it makes sense for the parties and the Court to allow these parties to litigate all their issues in one place and with one judge, particularly one that has ruled on pre-answer motion relating to the merits of the claim. In sum, common sense and numerous cases routinely allow substitution of lead plaintiffs when the original lead plaintiff can no longer function as lead plaintiff. Any other conclusion would be unjust and a waste of judicial resources, especially in the context and procedural posture of the case. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/KB4sBB from Leagle.com. JUDY WILSON, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW JOSEPH OBERGFELL -- aobergfell@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL T. HENSLEY New Jersey -- mhensley@bressler.com -- BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C. R & M FREIGHT: Lumpkins Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY EARL LUMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. R & M FREIGHT, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 2020CH02584 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for persons injured by its conduct. The Plaintiff contends that using biometric-enabled technology, the Defendant is capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track their time at work. R&M Trucking is a full service trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com tkingsbury@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Vasquez Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as YOLANDA VASQUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02122-KM-JBC (D.N.J., Feb. 26, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius is a collections agency providing accounts receivable services and expert customer relationship management outsourcing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence c. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com RAYDON CORP: ESOP Participants Class Certified in Woznicki Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE WOZNICKI v. RAYDON CORPORATION, DONALD K. ARIEL, DAVID P. DONOVAN, THE ESOP COMMITTEE OF THE RAYDON CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK, DAVID P. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, ARIEL FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 18, 2012, PAMELA W. ARIEL, VERNA L. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, DAVID P. DONOVAN, JR., IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, LORI L. WEISS IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008 and NIKI J. DUNCAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, Case No. 6:18-cv-02090-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy W. Berger entered an order: 1. overruling Lubbock's Objection and the Raydon Defendants' Objection; 2. adopting and confirming Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation; 3. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; 4. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1) consisting of: "all participants in the Raydon Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan from September 30, 2015, or any time thereafter, who vested under the terms of the Plan and those participants' beneficiaries." Excluded from the named class are Defendants and their immediate family (including any person defined as a relative under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(15)); any fiduciary of the Plan; the officers and directors of Raydon Corporation or of any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. 5. certifying Stephanie Woznicki as representative of the class; 6. certifying Robert Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP, Daniel M. Feinberg of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, and Sam Jones Smith and Loren Bolno Donnell of Burr & Smith, LLP as Class Counsel; 7. directing parties to jointly file on or before March 30, 2020, a proposed notice to the class members for approval by the Court. The Court said, "To the extent that Defendants argue that personal animosity by putative class members against Plaintiff would subject any class resolution to collateral attack, Defendants' arguments are unsupported and fail to address how Plaintiff's representation would deprive any putative class member of due process. The fact that the Raydon Defendants' employees may not like Plaintiff or agree with comments that she has made does not equate with inadequacy. Accordingly, this Court agrees with the R&R that Plaintiff has established adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4)." Raydon Corporation provides military training solutions.[CC] RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement in Blair Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, (i) granted the Plaintiffs' for final approval of a class settlement, and (ii) granted in part their motion for attorney's fees, expenses, and incentive award. Defendants Rent-A-Center, Inc. and Rent-A-Center West, Inc. ("RAC") maintained rent-to-own stores throughout California. These stores rented and sold new and used household merchandise to consumers for periodic payments. The named Plaintiffs and class representatives entered into rental-purchase agreements with RAC in 2015 and 2016. Based on these agreements, the Plaintiffs made claims for relief including for violations of the Karnette Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, usury, and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. A November 2018 order granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Karnette Act claim. A parallel order issued that same day certified the following class: All individuals who, on or after March 13, 2013, entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California. In November 2018, RAC moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' usury claim (the only claim certified for class treatment) and the Plaintiffs moved for partial reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part class certification. A February 2019 granted RAC's motion for summary judgment on the usury claim and certified the following subclass: All individuals who, between March 13, 2013 and Jan. 17, 2018, entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California for an item that was shipped to a RAC retail location by RAC National Product Services, LLC and as to which RAC allocated a freight up-charge. Following a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, the parties reached a settlement in March 2019. An October order granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. After the Plaintiffs revised their notice to include the estimated payments to class members, a subsequent order approved, as to form and content, a notice concerning the class settlement agreement and final approval hearing. The settlement administrator then mailed or emailed notice of the proposed class settlement and fee request to all 32,792 class members in the Matched NPS Dataset and all 80,609 class members in Unmatched Dataset. The administrator also posted all relevant documents on a website. For the notices returned as undeliverable, the administrator used an information supplier subscription service to locate the individuals. Ultimately, 1,335 individuals from the Matched NPS Dataset and 7,023 individuals from the Unmatched Dataset have been unable to receive notice. There have been two requests to opt out and no class members have objected to the settlement. The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the proposed class settlement of injunctive relief for the CLRA class, $13 million for the NPS subclass, an award of $3.9 million in attorney's fees, $209,531.54 in unreimbursed expenses, an incentive award of $2,500 for plaintiff Falecha Harris, and incentive awards of $1,500 each for Plaintiffs Paula Blair, Andrea Robinson, and Celinda Garza. The Defendants do not oppose. Judge Alsup finds that the notice of settlement, as well as the manner in which it was sent to the class members, fairly and adequately described the proposed class settlement, the manner in which the class members could object to or participate in the settlement, and the manner in which the class members could opt out of the class. He finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the class, the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court approved the settlement and plan of allocation. Having considered the class counsel's motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and an incentive award, the Court awarded the class counsel attorney's fees of $3,836,840.54. Half of the amount will be paid after the "effective date" as defined in the settlement agreement. The other half will be paid when the class counsel certifies that all funds have been properly distributed and the file can be completely closed. The class counsel will also receive $209,531.54 ($62,619.78 for Altshuler Berzon and $146,911.76 for Dostart Hanniak & Coveney) as reimbursement for their litigation expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. Plaintiff Harris will receive a $400 service award. Plaintiff Blair will receive a $200 service award. Plaintiff Robinson will receive a $200 service award. Plaintiff Garza will receive a $200 service award. The Court particularly commended Attorney Michael Rubin and Attorney Zach Dostart for the excellent work they have done on the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/VMur7a from Leagle.com. Paula L. Blair, Andrea Robinson & Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiffs, represented by James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney, Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Andrew Edward Kushner -- akushner@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eric Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP. Rent-A-Center, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Rent-A-Center West, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Christina Guerola Sarchio -- christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III -- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Lily Anna North -- lily.north@dechert.com -- Dechert, LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. RINCON PROGRESENO: Sanchez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled as KARELYS FRANCICO SANCHEZ, And all others Similarly Situated v. RINCON PROGRESENO CORP. d/b/a RINCON PROGRESENO, PEDRO AVILA, and GABRIELA A. AVILA, Case No. 2019-037105-CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 28, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 20-cv-20890-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges a violation of the "tip credit" requirements and seeks damages for the Fair Labor Standards Act alleged tip credit violation. The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ena T. Diaz, Esq. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A. 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 720 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377-8828 Facsimile: (305) 356-1311 E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS RCCA SERVICES, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-02474-JAK-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on June 15, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying a Class consisting of: "all individuals employed by Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employees who worked at a small group home or day program in California at any time from October 25, 2014 through the date of class certification"; 2. certifying these subclasses: Healthcare Screening Subclass: "all Class Members who were required to undergo mandatory drug testing, TB testing, or 21 physical examinations from October 25, 2014 through the date of class certification; On-Duty Meal Period Subclass: all Class Members worked for Defendants at a small group home in California who worked at least one on-duty meal period from October 25, 2014 through the date of class certification; Meal Period Premium Subclass: "all Class Members who worked any shift at least 5 hours in length clocked out for meal periods from October 25, 2014 through the date of class certification; Rest Break Subclass: "all Class Members who worked at least one shift of more than 3.5 hours from October 25, 2014 through the date of class certification; and Derivative Claims Subclass: "Plaintiff's Complaint also includes claims pursuant to Labor Code sections 510, 1198, 1194, 1997, 1197.1, 201, 202, 203, 204, and 226, and Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. These claims are entirely or partially derivative of the putative class claims at issue in this Motion and should be certified along with them." 3. appointing Christine Anderson as representative for the proposed Class and Subclasses; and 4. appointing Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel for the proposed Class and Subclasses.[CC] Attorneys for Christine Anderson are: Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Orlando Villalba, Esq. Joseph Hakakian, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Massiah Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Edith Massiah, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI U.S. SERVICES, INC., and CHATTEM, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11944 (Filed Dec. 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Feb. 27, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80315 to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 Million worth of damages. The action concerns the Defendants' manufacturing and distribution of ranitidine-based over-the-counter medications under the brand name Zantac that allegedly contain dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a liver-damaging impurity that the World Health Organization has described as "clearly carcinogenic" and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has referred to as a "potent carcinogen." The Plaintiff alleges that Sanofi's manufacturing process has caused Zantac to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA. Zantac belongs to a class of medications called histamine H2-receptor antagonists (or H2 blockers), which decrease the amount of acid produced by the stomach. Zantac is used to treat gastrointestinal conditions including heartburn, sour stomach, acid indigestion and gastroesophageal reflux disease, commonly known as GERD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C. 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400 Melville, NY 11757 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 Facsimile: (212) 991-8952 E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Sys. and Li Suits Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the class action suits initiated by the Police Retirement System of St. Louis and Hongwei Li. On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering IPO (the "PRS Action"). The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with SciPlay's IPO on or about May 3, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at least $146.0 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the PRS Action (the "Li Action"). On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single lawsuit. On December 23, 2019, the company moved to dismiss both complaints. SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them." SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action --------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by John Good. On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, Scientific Games, and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to SciPlay's initial public offering (IPO). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to SciPlay's IPO that it completed on or about May 7, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Suit vs. Scientific Games Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Scientific Games Corp. continues to defend a class action suit, entitled, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp. On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against the company's Parent (Scientific Games Corporation,), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing the company's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. The company' Parent filed its answer to the putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019. SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Although the case was brought against Scientific Games, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would expect to cover or contribute to any damage awards due to the matter arising as a result of our business." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SEE'S CANDY: Taylor Labor Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INCORPORATED and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV08372 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), seeks civil penalties arising from the Defendant's violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' failed to authorize or permit legally compliant rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages upon separation of employment. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt employee until December 16, 2019. See's Candies is an American manufacturer and distributor of candy, particularly chocolates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. James Yoo, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com jyoo@lelawfirm.com SIMCO FINE: Faces Sandoval Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMCO FINE DINING, LLC, a California limuted liability corporation; SIMCO RESTAURANTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-58-3325 (Cal. Super., Feb. 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages, and to provide meal periods and rest periods. The Plaintiff and the Class are non-exempt employees currently and/or formerly employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work at their Fog Harbor Fish House restaurant location in San Francisco, California. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., No. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: mirose@garaylaw.com daniel@garaviaw.com - and - Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the case, GEORGE GREGG, individually on behalf of himself and others similiarly situated v. SIMON BROTHERS, INC., a Domestic Profit Corporation, and GEORGE R. SIMON, Individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-00513-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an Order: 1. granting conditional certification and approving timely notice to the proposed class; 2. directing Defendant to produce a list of all members of the Putative Class by providing a list of their names, position held, last known addresses, dates of employment, and cell phone number in electronic and importable format, e.g. a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of an order; 3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send notice to the class consisting of: "all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel by U.S. Mail and text message; 4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send a post card reminder notice via mail and text message to putative class members at the half-way point in the notice period; 5. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to submit a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and 6. allowing putative class members to electronically sign and return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. Mari S. Yokhana, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 251-1399 E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com MYokhana@forthepeople.com SKYE ASSOCIATES: Violates Disabilities Act, Kalender Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skye Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Skye Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02452-VSB (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Skye Associates launched in 2006 offering a spectrum of services to help build, maintain and grow retailers' e-commerce needs.[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 SPARTAN RACE: Faces Fruitstone Insurance Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spartan Race Inc. The case is captioned as Aaron Fruitstone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Spartan Race Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20836-BB (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom. The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract-related laws. Spartan Race was founded in 2010. The Company's line of business includes operating and promoting professional and semiprofessional athletic clubs and events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq. Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza No. 601 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 Facsimile: (786) 298-5737 E-mail: blewis@cspalaw.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com adam@moskowitz-law.com SS IP HOLDINGS: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SS IP Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. SS IP Holdings, LLC doing business as: Slate & Stone, Case No. 1:20-cv-02511 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Slate & Stone is a luxury lifestyle brand for men that offers outerwear, shirts, knitwear, accessories and more.[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 ST. ANNE'S CREDIT: Faces Rapoza Suit Over Insufficient Funds Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON RAPOZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ST. ANNE'S CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:20-cv-10411-LTS (D. Mass., Feb. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendant's routine practice of assessing multiple insufficient funds fees or return charges on a single item or transaction, in violation of its contract with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant unlawfully assesses multiple NSF Fees on a single Automated Clearing House ("AHC") transaction or check. He adds that the Account Documents state that only a single NSF Fee will be charged for a "check, pre-authorized transfer, or other debt activity presented for payment": "If we return the item without paying it, we may charge you a non-sufficient funds fee." However, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant's sole and undisclosed view is that a single check or ACH transaction originally rejected and returned for insufficient funds becomes a new, unique "item" subject to a second NSF Fee despite the fact he never requested a second transaction. In no way is this disclosed to him in the Account Documents, he notes. The Plaintiff says that he and the Class have been injured by the Defendant's practices. As such, the Plaintiff seeks to recover any and all damages, restitution and injunctive relief for the Defendant's breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. St. Anne's Credit Union is headquartered in Fall River, Massachusetts, and has over $900 million in assets across 55,000 accountholders. The Company has eight branches, including in Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Fall River, New Bedford, Somerset, and Swansea; and services counties in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey N. Catalano, Esq. TODD & WELD LLP One Federal Street, Flr. 27 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2626 Facsimile: (617) 227-5777 - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com tbeckerOjohnsonbecker.com TAXSLAYER PRO: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taxslayer Pro LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Taxslayer Pro LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02459 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. TaxSlayer Pro is an all-inclusive tax preparation software.[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 TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in Suit Under IDEA ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Be.R., a minor student, by and through his parents, Chr.R. and Cha.R., and L.L., a minor student, by and through his parents, B.L. and R.L., and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00754 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder of Additional Named Plaintiff and Proposed Class Representative (or Remand) of Br.R.. The counsel representing the families of three students -- L.L., Be.R., and Br.R. -- filed a joint putative Class Action Complaint against the Defendant state agencies alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), related to the Carroll County Special Learning Center ("CCSLC"). The IDEA requires exhaustion of the state administrative process before filing a federal complaint, with a few limited exceptions. L.L. had exhausted his state administrative remedies against his local educational agency, but not against the Defendants. Be.R. and Br.R. had not exhausted their state administrative remedies toward any party. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing, among other things, that the claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. The Court held that Br.R. and L.L., whose claims involved CCSLC's treatment of non-preschool students, were required to exhaust the state administrative process. It, accordingly, dismissed their claims without prejudice. It held, however, that Be.R. was not required to exhaust the state administrative process because, based on his description of his claims, administrative exhaustion would have been futile. After the Court's Order, L.L. and Br.R. filed state administrative claims against the Defendants. Although L.L. and Br.R. filed jointly, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") severed their cases. The ALJ then dismissed Br.R.'s complaint on the ground that Br.R. had named only the state-level Defendants and not his local educational agency, which the ALJ ruled to be an indispensable party. Br.R. filed a motion to reconsider, and the ALJ reinstated the complaint but required him to include the local educational agency as a respondent, which he did. Meanwhile, L.L.'s case proceeded to a hearing, after which the ALJ ruled in favor of the Defendants. Specifically, the ALJ held that L.L. had been denied a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") under the IDEA, but that the denial was not the result of any violation of the law by the TDOE. The ALJ noted that L.L. had already resolved his claims against the party that the ALJ considered responsible, the local educational agency. On Dec. 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs, on agreement of the parties, were permitted to amend their Complaint to name L.L., once again, as a Plaintiff. Following the ALJ's ruling in L.L.'s case, Br.R. suggested to the Defendants that the parties file a joint proposed order in Br.R.'s case, stipulating that the same reasoning was dispositive as to Br.R.'s claims. That order would have allowed Br.R. to exhaust the administrative review process quickly, despite the fact that his case had procedurally lagged behind L.L.'s. The Defendants ultimately did not agree to the proposed order. Br.R., therefore, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking an administrative judgment in favor of his opponents, the defendants, in order to complete the required administrative exhaustion. The Defendants opposed the motion, and the ALJ denied it. The counsel for the Plaintiffs then filed the instnatn motion, seeking to join Br.R. as a Plaintiff in the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, despite his ongoing administrative proceeding. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should construe the judgment in L.L.'s administrative proceeding as having exhausted Br.R.'s administrative remedies, because the reasoning in L.L.'s case would necessitate the same conclusion in Br.R.'s. They liken their argument to the "single filing rule" recognized by the Sixth Circuit regarding EEOC charges. The 'single filing rule' allows one plaintiff's administrative charge to satisfy the charging obligations of other plaintiffs in certain situations. Although the rule often comes up in class action cases, it is not limited to the class action setting. As long as the later claim is "substantially related" to the claim for which a timely charge was filed and "arises out of the same time frame," the second plaintiff is not required to satisfy Title VII's filing requirement. Judge Taruger finds that the Plaintiffs have not identified any Sixth Circuit precedent applying the same-filing rule to IDEA claims, and the Sixth Circuit itself has stressed that the exceptions to the IDEA exhaustion requirement are narrow and limited. The Sixth Circuit has construed the exceptions narrowly because the administrative process serves an important purpose within the IDEA framework. Moreover, the preference for resolving complaints administratively, rather than through the slow pace of litigation in court, puts an emphasis on resolving problems quickly, before the harm done to a child has compounded itself over time. Indeed, as the Court In any event, as the Defendants have pointed out, it is far from clear that the ALJ's decision with regard to L.L. actually should be read as capable of resolving Br.R.'s complaint. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' characterization, the ALJ did not base her analysis on a categorical rejection that a state educational agency could be liable in an IDEA case. Rather, the ALJ explicitly entertained the possibility that liability was possible, if L.L. could establish a state-level violation that led to his FAPE denial. That is a factual issue, and L.L.'s alleged failure to make an adequate showing does not mean that Br.R. will fail as well. Different plaintiffs with similar injuries may still present different evidence. Finally, the Court notes that there are substantial prudential reasons against adopting the broad exception to the exhaustion requirement that the Plaintiffs advocate. Issues frequently recur between IDEA cases, and the number of potential IDEA Defendants is limited. As a result, many separate IDEA complaints are similar in substance, closely spaced in time, and directed at the same Defendants. To the contrary, entire large categories of child could be relieved of the exhaustion requirement merely because a child with a similar claim went before them. The Court will not adopt such a significant change in a defining feature of special education law without some persuasive basis in statutory text or the caselaw of the circuit. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its earlier ruling that exhaustion is required for Br.R. in the first place. They specifically argue that the subsequent developments in his case and L.L.'s case demonstrate that exhaustion was, in fact, futile after all. The Court sees no persuasive reason to allow a plaintiff who has already lost his futility exception argument to come back to the court for a second bite of the apple merely because things are not going his way in the administrative process. It is commonplace for a litigant to realize that he is likely going to lose at a particular level. That does not mean that he can skip the actual resolution of that stage of proceedings. Moreover, as the court has already noted, it is not, in fact, the case that the decision on L.L.'s complaint resolves Br.R.'s claims conclusively. In short, Br.R.'s administrative case is ongoing, and the court will not treat it as otherwise. The Plaintiffs' motion is therefore denied without prejudice to joinder of Br.R. when he has exhausted state administrative remedies, the Court orders. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memoradum & Order is available at https://is.gd/sFVlit from Leagle.com. B.L., parent, R.L., parent, Be.R., minor student, by and through parents, Chr.R., parent & Cha.R., parent, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica F. Salonus, The Salonus Firm, PLC & Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC. Tennessee Department of Education & Tennessee State Board of Education, Defendants, represented by Taylor William Jenkins, Tennessee Attorney General's Office. TUFIN SOFTWARE: Faces Primozich Suit Over Drop of IPO Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATT PRIMOZICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., REUVEN KITOV, JACK WAKILEH, REUVEN HARRISON, OHAD FINKELSTEIN, EDOUARD CUKIERMAN, YAIR SHAMIR, RONNI ZEHAVI, and YUVAL SHACHAR, Case No. 651287/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 26, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 arising from Tufin's materially misleading offering documents issued in connection with an initial public offering. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Tufin ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO conducted on April 11, 2019. On March 6, 2019, Tufin filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on April 10, 2019. On April 11, 2019, Tufin filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. That same day, pursuant to the Offering Documents, Tufin commenced the IPO and its securities began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "TUFN." Pursuant to the IPO, the Company sold 7.7 million ordinary shares priced at $14.00 per share, raising approximately $107.8 million in capital upon the Offering's completion. The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents were false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: Tufin's customer relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with respect to North America; and Tufin's business was deteriorating, primarily in North America On January 9, 2020, Tufin announced preliminary unaudited revenue and non-GAAP operating loss estimates for its fourth fiscal quarter of 2019. Tufin announced that it expected to report total revenue in the range of $29.5 million to $30.1 million, compared to its previous guidance of total revenue in the range of $34.0 million to $38.0 million, and that Tufin now anticipated non-GAAP operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6 million, compared to the Company's previous guidance of non-GAAP operating profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million. According to Defendant Reuven Kitov, Tufin's Chief Executive Officer, Co-Founder, and Chairman of the Board, "the primary reason for Tufin's revenue shortfall was its inability to close a number of transactions, primarily in North America, that Defendants anticipated would close but did not close by the end of the quarter." Following this news, Tufin's share price fell $4.14 per share, or 24.04%, to close at $13.08 per share on January 9, 2020. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Tufin ordinary shares continue to trade below the IPO price of $14.00 per share. The Plaintiff acquired Tufin ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Tufin was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. The Company develops, markets, and sells software-based solutions primarily in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Fails to Honor Payer Obligations, MSP Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20887-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has systematically and uniformly failed to honor its primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. MSP alleges that the Defendant failed to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents that should have been paid by the Defendant but, instead, were paid by Medicare and/or Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs). As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses have been borne by Medicare and MAOs to the detriment of the Medicare fund and the public, says the complaint. According to the complaint, the Defendant's obligations to pay for accident-related medical expenses on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries is primary relative to Medicare's obligation to pay for those same accident-related medical expenses, which is secondary. The Defendant has systematically failed to make these payments and has, instead, passed on those expenses to Medicare. The Defendant is an auto or other liability insurer that provides either no-fault or med-pay insurance to its customers, including Medicare beneficiaries. Pursuant to its contractual obligations with its enrollees, and under state law, the Defendant is to provide coverage for its enrollees' accident-related medical expenses without regard for whether the enrollee was at fault for the accident, or on a "no-fault" basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve I. Silverman, Esq. KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE P.L. 201 S Biscayne Blvd., No. 2700 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com - and - John H. Ruiz, Esq. Frank C. Quesada, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com fquesada@msprecovery.com UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca Immigration Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. The case is captioned as Jose L. Velesaca, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Thomas R. Decker, in his official capacity as New York Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Matthew Albence, in his official capacity as the Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Sheriff Carl E. DuBois, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Orange County; United States Department of Homeland Security; Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case No. 1:20-cv-01798-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Immigration & Nationality Act. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Belsher, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org VERISK ANALYTICS: Sheahan Class Action Ongoing in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al. On December 10, 2018, the company was served with a First Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California titled Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al. The action is brought by California homeowners, on their own behalf and on behalf of an unspecified putative class of State Farm policyholders whose homes were damaged or lost during the Northern California wildfires of 2017, against State Farm as well as us, ISO, and Xactware Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs served a Second Amended Complaint on January 6, 2019. Like the First Amended Complaint, it alleges that defendants through the use of our 360Value product conspired to under-insure plaintiffs' homes by issuing undervalued policies and underestimating the costs of rebuilding those homes. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 8, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the Court granted those motions, dismissing various claims with leave to amend, and dismissing other claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on August 1, 2019. As in the Second Amended Complaint plaintiffs claim in the Third Amended Complaint that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on September 19, 2019. The motions were fully submitted on October 31, 2019 and oral argument, originally scheduled for November 27, 2019, has been postponed to February 13, 2020. At this time, it is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics and decision support solutions to customers in rating, underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance, Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Alvarado Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM'S WEST, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and 22 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02558 (Filed Jan. 22, 2020), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 27, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01926 to the proceeding. The class action lawsuit seeks to recover wages and penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees of necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants deny any liability in the case, as to Plaintiff's individual, class, and representative claims, and say that they will present compelling defenses to these claims on the merits. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only retail warehouse clubs owned and operated by Walmart Inc.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com WAWA INC: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App -------------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-21236-BB (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by offering and maintaining a mobile application that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Defendant's app (software that is intended to run on mobile devices, such as phones or tablet computers) does not properly interact with Apple's assistive technology in a manner that will allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff has downloaded and attempted to patronize the Defendant's app in the past and intends to continue to make further attempts to patronize the Defendant's app. However, the Plaintiff contends, unless the Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue and required to change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on the Defendant's app, the Plaintiff will continue to be denied full and equal access to the app as described and will be deterred from fully using the Defendant's app or shopping at the physical locations. The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions present at the Defendant's app, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine years. WAWA, INC., owns, operates and maintains multiple stores called 7-WAWA, within the Southern District of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com WAYFINDER FAMILY: Ellie Labor Suit Seeks Penalties Under PAGA ------------------------------------------------------------- MIESHA ELLIE, individually and on behalf of the proposed class v. WAYFINDER FAMILY SERVICES, INC., A California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 49, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV08385 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2020), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, penalties, and award of attorneys' fees under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other employees used their cellular telephones, data, and text messaging services for the benefit of the Defendants' business without adequate indemnification. The Plaintiff and other employees were not provided adequate meal and rest breaks pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and other employees were not paid for all hours worked, in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in July 10, 2014, as a Group Home Counselor until October 18, 2019. The Defendants are in the business of providing care for those with disabilities. The Defendants' services include providing care for the blind, and disabled at facilities throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com - and - Sean S. Vahdat, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN S. VAHDAT & ASSOCIATES, APLC 1224 East Katella Avenue, Suite 211 Orange, CA 92867 Telephone: (949) 496-2011 Facsimile: (949) 313-7088 E-mail: sean@vahdatlaw.com WEISER SECURITY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Smith Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00110-DCR (E.D. Ky., March 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to seek remedy from its violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Collective proper overtime wages. Although the Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage, the Defendant did not pay them time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. Instead, the Defendant paid them time-and-a-half of an improperly reduced rate of pay, says the complaint. Plaintiff Smith was hired by the Defendant in April 2019 as a Site Supervisor. Weiser operates a private security business, offering security solutions to businesses, including commercial office buildings and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Tamara J. Patterson, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 1795 Alysheba Way, Suite 4207 Lexington, KY 40509 Phone: 859.263.7884 Fax: 844.270.3044 Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com tpatterson@lockabylaw.com WINCO FOODS: Court Certifies California Class in Johnson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ALFRED JOHNSON v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, et. al., Case No.: ED CV 17-2288-DOC (SHKx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order: 1. certifying a California Class of: "all hourly, non-exempt employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and WinCo Holdings, Inc. working in retail stores or distribution centers in the State of California who were required to undergo mandatory drug-testing after August 23, 2013 through the date of certification"; 2. appointing Alfred Johnson as the class representative; and 3. appointing Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the burden of demonstrating that the California Class satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). This putative class action arises from Alfred Johnson's employment with Winco. The Plaintiff alleges injury as a result of Defendants' alleged illegal policies and practices that violate California labor law by failing to compensate employees for the time spent and costs incurred undergoing Defendants' mandatory drug-testing.[CC] ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Rhoden Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawntasha Rhoden, and on behalf of herself and other current and former employees v. ZALE DELAWARE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV11561 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Labor Code and the implementing rules and regulations of IWC California Wage Orders. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked at the legally mandated wage rates. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to compensate her for all hours worked including, overtime and double-time overtime wages. Specifically, the Defendant failed to include bonuses in the regular rate for purpose of paying overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on August 12, 2019, through October 13, 2019. Zale is a Delaware corporation operating a variety of luxury goods stores throughout the United States, including the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Joshua D. Klein, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 590-5550 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net jklein@mahoney-law.net ZENDESK INC: Court Consolidates Reidinger & Ho Securities Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the unopposed motion to consolidate, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) the cases, CHARLES REIDINGER, Plaintiff, v. ZENDESK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06968-CRB (N.D. Cal.), and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-07361-WHA. The two putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed against Zendesk. Because these actions present virtually identical questions of law and fact, the unopposed motion to consolidate them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is granted, the District Court orders. Judge Breyer explains that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act provides that the Court will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The Judge finds that Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund meets all of the Act's requirements. It submitted a timely motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. More importantly, it is undisputed that the Pension Fund has the largest financial interest in the case. The Pension Fund's motion for appointment as the lead counsel is now unopposed, so the presumption that it is the most adequate Plaintiff is unrebutted. The Pension Fund's motion to be appointed as lead counsel is granted. The Pension Fund's choice of Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel is approved. As the Court has previously found, Robbins Gellar has ample experience prosecuting complex securities class action lawsuits and will adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and therefore vacated the hearing currently set for Jan. 31, 2010. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/UoPHt6 from Leagle.com. Charles Reidinger, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.co -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank James Johnson -- frankj@johnsonfistel.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP & Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Zendesk, Inc., Mikkel Svane, Elena Gomez, Adrian McDermott, John Geschke, Jeffrey Titterton & Norman Gennaro, Defendants, represented by Michael T. Jones -- mjones@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP. Kellie A. Snyder, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Donald Armstrong, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Mandy Ho, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Michael Albert, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. ZYNGA INC: Johnson Files Suit in Northern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zynga Inc. The case is styled as Carol Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zynga Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02024-JSC (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States.[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 ********* 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 ***