/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200402.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 67 Headlines AIR EVAC: Buchta Seeks to Certify Class of Airline Employees AIR PRODUCTS: Stone Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Grants Morris' Bid for Class Certification ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Border Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ALUCOBOND: Apartment Owners Can Expand Cladding Claims AMS ELITE: Grabowski Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy ANTENNA STAR: Swanson Seeks to Certify Installation Techs Class ANTHEM BLUE: Wellstar Class Action Progresses in Cobb Sup. Court ARKANSAS FAMILY: Lang Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & AMWA ASSOCIATED COURIER: Couriers Seek Denied Overtime Pay AT&T: Calif. Consumers Can Proceed w/ Class Action Over Phone Speed AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Contamination Class Action AUSTRALIA: Tasmanians Over-Represented in Robo-Debt Class Action BAUSCH HEALTH: MSP Suit Transferred From Florida to California BLOOM ENERGY: To Restate Financial Statements Amid Class Action BLUEHUB CAPITAL: Homeowners File Class Action in Massachusetts BROTHERS AND SON: Lopez-Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Carlier Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls COINBASE INC: Court Denies Leidel Motion to Certify Class COMENITY BANK: Faces Ahmed TCPA Suit Over Unconsented Robocalls CONAIR CORP: Byron Sues Over Defective Hair Dryer CORELLE BRANDS: Consumers to Voluntarily Dismiss Remaining Claims DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Hall Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey DIRECT RECOVERY: Meyer Sues Over Unsolicited Spam Text Messages ELECTRICITY MAINE: Nears $132.5MM Class Action Settlement ENERGEN RESOURCES: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling FASTENAL COMPANY: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California FLUOR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims FORT SMITH, AR: Can Compel Resident in Class Suit to Provide Notice FRITO-LAY NORTH: Improperly Labels Potato Chips, Svensrud Claims GALLAGHER BASSETT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Portland Over 5.3L V8 Engine Design Flaws GOOGLE INC: Arizona AG Challenges Wi-Fi Privacy Case Settlement GREIF INC: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Pham ERISA Suit Says GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Must Face Class Action Over Student Abuses HILTON WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action HOUSTON ASTROS: Fan Files $1-Mil. Class Action IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Howard Says INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Young BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois INTERSECT ENT: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims IQ FORMULATIONS: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling KNOX COUNTY, TN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Amble" LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Class Action LIFEENERGY LLC: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls LOW VA RATES: Faces Amann TCPA Suit in Southern District of Ohio LUBRIZOL ADVANCED: Falsely Markets FlowGuard Gold, Jones Claims LUCKIN COFFEE: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set LUCKY STORES: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Beasley Suit Denied MACY'S WEST: Valdovinos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California MCCORMICK & CO: Black Pepper Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK MELALEUCA INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Wainwright Suit MGP INGREDIENTS: April 28 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Motion MISSISSIPPI: Rappers File 2nd Class Action v. Corrections Dep't MOL: Faces Class Action Over Car Shipping Cartel MORRISON & FOERSTER: Two Ex-Lawyers Withdraw Mommy Track Suit NAVIENT CORPORATION: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dewitt" NEW JERSEY: E-Pazz Class Action for Review in New Brunswick NEW YORK, NY: Settles Youth Shelter Class Action NISSAN: Settles Class Action Over Engine Defect PENNSYLVANIA: Gov. Wolf Faces Class Suit by Schulmerich Bells PPG INDUSTRIES: Castro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Paris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes QFS TRANSPORTATION: Jailani Class Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana RED ROBIN INT'L: Mina TCPA Suit Moved from California to Colorado RIPPLE: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Cyrpto Class Action RONAK FOODS: Martin Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Delivery Drivers RUTTER'S INC: Faces Collins Suit in M.D. Pa. Over Data Breach SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS: Anguiano Files FDCPA Suit in California SEQWATER: Appeals Ruling in 2011 Brisbane Flood Class Action SPANCRETE INC: Dokey Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class STATE STREET: Judge Orders Law Firms to Repay Inflated Legal Fees STRANGE HONEY: Consumers Intend to Dismiss Class Action STYROFOAM MOULDING: Feliciano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages TAWH INC: Caceres Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Spread-of-Hours Pay TRANSUNION LLC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Manley Says TRI CITY FOODS: Sciortino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Thompson Suit UNIV. OF PITTSBURGH MED: Judge Won't Recuse Himself from Class Suit VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Stays Derivative Suit WELLS FARGO: Settles $3 Billion in Criminal Fines, Civil Penalties WESTCO CHEMICALS: Violates ERISA as Plan Fiduciary, Diaz Alleges WESTPAC BANKING: Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Class Action [*] Courts Okay $25.6MM Settlement in Price Fixing Class Action [*] Opioid Negotiation Class Subverts State Governmental Authority [*] Threat of Litigation for CBD Companies Remains High Concern [*] Volume of U.S. Securities Class Suit Settlements Dipped in 2019 ********* AIR EVAC: Buchta Seeks to Certify Class of Airline Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ In thec class action lawsuit styled as DARRIN BUCHTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC. d/b/a AIR EVAC LIFETEAM, Case No. 4:19-cv-00976-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all Pilots, Flight Paramedics, Flight Nurses and Mechanics employed by Air Evac as indicated above for the states of West Virginia and Illinois." In the alternative, separate classes for each state are appropriate.; 2. approving a Notice to be sent to all class members; 3. designating Arnold & Miller PLC and Cowan Law Office, PLC as class counsel. The case is a wage and hour action. The Plaintiffs are or were employed by Air Evac, an air ambulance service, as either flight paramedics, flight nurses, pilots or mechanics in Illinois and West Virginia. The complaint alleges that until Air Evac changed its pay practices on or about July 8, 2018, it did not pay its pilots, paramedics, mechanics and flight nurses time and a half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Arnold, Esq. Christopher D. Miller, Esq. ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC 401 West Main Street, Suite 303 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: 859 381 9999 Facsimile: 859 389 6666 E-mail: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com - and - J. Robert Cowan, Esq. COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC 2401 Regency Road; Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40503 Telephone: 859 523 8883 Facsimile: 859 523 8885 E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com AIR PRODUCTS: Stone Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled RANDY STONE, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV000137 (Jan. 31, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Napa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 5, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01627 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay wages and/or overtime pay. Air Products is an American international corporation whose principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial uses.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John S. Battenfeld, Esq. Ashley A. Baltazar, Esq. Rebecca N. Friedman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: +1.213.612.2500 Facsimile: +1.213.612.2501 E-mail John.battenfeld@morganlewis.com Ashley.baltazar@morganlewis.com ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Grants Morris' Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as VINCENT MORRIS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. SHERRIF OF ALLEN COUNTY, in his official capacity, and ALLEN COUNTY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-DRL-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order: 1. granting Mr. Morris' motion for class certification and stipulation for class certification; 2. certifying class consisting of: "all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Allen County Jail"; and 3. appointing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), Kenneth Falk, Stevie Pactor, and Samuel Bolinger as counsel for the class. The court said, "Mr. Morris has established all the necessary requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to obtain class certification." Mr. Morris alleges that medical emergencies are not responded to in an appropriate time, citing his own emergency when his cellmate had to kick on the door for 30 minutes before a correctional officer responded. He says these conditions have also limited the amount of recreation time the prisoners are allowed. To rectify these grievances, Mr. Morris filed a complaint and motion for class certification on January 21, 2020. He claims the conditions in the Allen County Jail violate his and other prisoners' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He requests declaratory and injunctive relief for himself and those similarly situated. Mr. Morris was a pretrial detainee at the jail but has since pleaded guilty to criminal offenses. He resided in several different cell blocks in the Allen County Jail. While housed in A-block, there was only one permanent bed in his cell, so he says he was forced to sleep on the floor in a "boat" for almost 6 months. According to the complaint, the Allen County Jail currently has 741 operational beds for the prisoners housed there.[CC] ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Border Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Border, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alternate Solutions Health Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01273, (S.D. Ohio, March 31, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Border worked for Alternate Solutions Health Network as an occupational/physical therapy assistant who performed therapeutic treatment services under the direction and supervision of a licensed physical or occupational therapist. She was compensated on a pay per visit basis, for each in-home treatment they performed. She claims to be uncompensated for work done outside her actual visits. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com ALUCOBOND: Apartment Owners Can Expand Cladding Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Leith van Onselen, writing for Macrobusiness, reports that apartment owners involved in two combustible cladding class actions have been given permission by the Federal Court to expand their claims under Australian Consumer Law. Vitrabond supplier Fairview Architectural is the subject of one of the class actions, while Alucobond manufacturer 3A Composites and supplier Halifax Vogel Group are the subject of the other class action. Both actions are being backed by litigation funder IMF Bentham: The expanded claims against Alucobond supplier Halifax Vogel Group and manufacturer 3A Composites as well as Vitrabond supplier Fairview Architectural add to the existing claims under Australian Consumer Law that the combustible panels failed to meet acceptable quality standards. They add to pressure the IMF Bentham-backed claimants are putting on the respondents to settle the case that does not kick off until late next year. "These are additional claims that the claimants might be successful on subject to establishing the manufacturers' liability," said Gavin Beardsell, an investment director of litigation funder IMF Bentham . . . Mr. Beardsell [said] . . . the funder had had "large numbers" of buildings register for the action. So that's the two biggest suppliers of flammable cladding embroiled in class action lawsuits. If they lose these cases, then the ramifications could be huge, possibly resulting in many millions of dollars in compensation being paid to owners of thousands of apartments across Australia. Surely other suppliers will also then be dragged into litigation. [GN] AMS ELITE: Grabowski Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Grabowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMS Elite Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2020CH02871 (Ill. Cir., March 9, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiff was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints and AMS Elite Solutions never provided him with a retention schedule and/or guideline for permanently destroying his biometric identifiers and biometric information, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com ANTENNA STAR: Swanson Seeks to Certify Installation Techs Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL SWANSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANTENNA STAR SATELLITES, INC. d/b/a COLONIAL SMART HOME SERVICES, Case No. 2:19-cv-05539-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: A. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the following putative collective members: "all current and former Installation Technicians of Defendant at any time from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of judgment"; B. approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms; C. directing Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment in an electronic and importable format such as an unrestricted Excel spreadsheet within ten calendar days of the entry of the order; D. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the court- approved Notice and Consent forms via first-class mail, e-mail and text message to putative FLSA collective members and to send a follow-up reminder notice by the same means halfway through the notice period; and E. allowing putative FLSA collective members an opt-in period of ninety days from circulation of the court-approved Notice to file their written consent forms. Antenna Star is an information services company based out of 1265 E Main St, Meriden, Connecticut, United States.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com ANTHEM BLUE: Wellstar Class Action Progresses in Cobb Sup. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosie Manins, writing for Marietta Daily journal, reports that a class action lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, centered around whether its insurance to locals included Wellstar Health System coverage, is progressing in Cobb Superior Court despite an attempt to have it heard in federal court. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Georgia citizens in Cobb Superior Court in April 2019, asserts Anthem's marketing for its insurance plans showed Wellstar was in-network, but that wasn't the case. Anthem had already decided to drop Wellstar from its network, but this was not disclosed to people when they signed up for plans during open enrollment in November and December 2018, the lawsuit claims. Anthem's insurance plans were sold on the individual health insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act. In their complaint, the citizens claim Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield violated several standards by failing to disclose pending changes to its provider network during the open enrollment period for 2019. Separately, plaintiffs allege the insurance company breached its contracts with policyholders by failing to keep its in-network provider list current before and after the policies were issued, and by unilaterally amending the policies to require a referral from a primary care physician to see a specialist. In May 2019, the insurance company tried to get the case moved to the Atlanta Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That was denied by the federal court on Feb. 4, and the case was referred back to Cobb Superior Court, records show. Marietta attorney Jason Doss, representing the plaintiffs, told the MDJ the next step in the case is for the insurance company to respond to the class action complaint by March 5, as stipulated in a Cobb Superior Court order dated Feb. 10. The case has been assigned to Cobb Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard. [GN] ARKANSAS FAMILY: Lang Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & AMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA LANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARKANSAS FAMILY CARE NETWORK, P.A., and DANIEL FELTON, Case No. 4:20-cv-00240-SWW (E.D. Ark., March 5, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay lawful overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. The Defendants own and operate a doctor's office in Little Rock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com april@sanfordlawfirm.com ASSOCIATED COURIER: Couriers Seek Denied Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Muhammad Abdul-Ahad, Jamaal Ike and Ishmael Lamin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Associated Courier, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00607, (D. Minn., February 26, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation for hours worked over 48 in a workweek pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and redress for retaliation pursuant to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and for discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Associated Courier operates as "Street Fleet," providing delivery services where Plaintiffs worked as couriers. They allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and not paid overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Ike and Abdul-Ahad claim to be terminated for complaining about this. Abdul-Ahad, an African-American, complained about discriminatory work environment due to racial, religious and national origin. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Email: jeidsness@nka.com - and - Joshua A. Newville, Esq. MADIA LAW LLC 323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 349-2743 Email: newville@madialaw.com AT&T: Calif. Consumers Can Proceed w/ Class Action Over Phone Speed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that consumers in California can proceed with a class-action suit against AT&T for slowing down data speeds on mobile phones despite a promise of unlimited service, a federal appeals court ruled on Feb. 18. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco in 2015, suffered an apparently fatal setback a year later when U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said he was bound by the provisions in AT&T's customer contracts to refer each customer to arbitration with AT&T rather than a collective suit in court. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld his ruling in 2017. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Contamination Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Dylan Nicholson, writing for Defence Connect, reports that a settlement has been reached between the Australian government and residents of three communities who have experienced ground water contamination from the use of toxic firefighting foams at Defence bases until the early 2000s. Residents from Williamtown in NSW, Oakey in Queensland, and Katherine in the Northern Territory had each brought class actions. They contended that the Department of Defence was liable for depressed land values and business outlooks. It has been found that widespread use of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for liquid fire fighting purposes had contaminated ground water in each community. PFAS belongs in a group of chemicals that do not break down and instead can accumulate in soil. Authorities have found that PFOS and PFOA chemicals (types of PFAS) can cause major health effects in laboratory animals. In a joint statement from the Minister for Defence, Linda Reynolds, and the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Darren Chester, the government said the parties were finalising the confidential terms of a settlement. "The Australian government has reached an in-principle agreement to settle three Federal Court of Australia class actions relating to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)," the statement said. "These terms are confidential and are subject to formal consideration and approval by the Federal Court of Australia." "It gives people a future -- that's the fundamental thing that had been taken away from us, our properties are now not fit for purpose, and because of the stigma of the contamination, the property values have collapsed," Lindsay Clout, the president of the coalition against PFAS, said in a statement to the ABC. "Defence has committed huge amounts of money to clean up the base, and they're making good headway on it, but the fight's not over because the clean-up continues. "There are a lot of other communities across the country that are starting the journey similar to ours, but what's happened will certainly give them hope there is a future for them." Defence said in the statement that "Defence sees itself as part of the fabric of these communities and the government remains committed to engaging with those impacted by PFAS contamination". It also said that it recognised the "difficult journey for many people over the past few years". "The government remains committed to concluding the environmental investigations into PFAS contamination on and near Defence facilities across Australia, and to the ongoing monitoring and engagement with communities once investigations are complete," the statement said. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Tasmanians Over-Represented in Robo-Debt Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Holmes, writing for The Advocate, reports that Tasmanians are doubly over-represented in the class action against the government's potentially illegal robo-debt program, suggesting the harm from the part-automated government welfare retrieval process hit the island state harder. Of the approximately 10,000 people registered for the class action, about 450 were from Tasmania, according to data released by Gordon Legal which is running the action in the Federal Court. This represents 4.5 per cent of the applicants, while Tasmania only makes up 2.1 per cent of Australia's population. The class action is examining whether the debts issued as a result of income averaging - in which Centrelink based the debt on an estimate of an individual's income - are unlawful. About 600,000 debts were issued as a result of this method. Gordon Legal's action is calling for these debts to be refunded and for compensation to be paid. More than 120,000 Tasmanians live below the poverty line. TasCOSS acting chief executive officer Simone Zell said the program was "blatantly unfair", and the disproportionate rate of Tasmanians involved in the class action "is likely a reflection of the prevalence of low incomes in our state". "The high rate of under-employed or part-time workers in Tasmania has also added to the impact of robo-debt as fluctuating incomes such as these make people particularly vulnerable to automated income matching systems," she said. "Ninety-four per cent of jobs created in the past five years were casual or part-time (Australian Bureau of Statistics). "Robo-debt created a culture of fear and dread around our social safety net that has driven people away from support when they need it most." A Senate inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program held a public hearing in Launceston last year. A spokesperson for the Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, said it would be inappropriate to comment as the matter is before the court. [GN] BAUSCH HEALTH: MSP Suit Transferred From Florida to California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.; SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SANTARUS, INC.; ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and LUPIN LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-20555 (Filed Feb. 6, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 4, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01587-JSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief arising from the Defendants' anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreement, which eliminated generic competition in the United States for branded and generic versions of Glumetza (extended release metformin). Glumetza is a drug used to treat patients with Type 2 diabetes. The Defendants are doing business in pharmaceutical industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Edward Whorton, Esq. David Lee DaPonte, Esq. Jorge Alejandro Mestre, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com ddaponte@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason A. Ross, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5425 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: jason.ross@arnoldporter.com - and - Suria Marie Bahadue, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 995-8250 Facsimile: (202) 831-6066 E-mail: sbahadue@gibsondunn.com - and - Mark Robert Rosman, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI 1700 K Street, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-8800 Facsimile: (202) 973-8899 E-mail: mrosman@wsgr.com BLOOM ENERGY: To Restate Financial Statements Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- On February 12, 2020, Bloom Energy Corporation (BE) announced that it will restate its financial statements for the period January 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 to correct errors in its accounting for the company's Managed Service Agreements or MSAs. These errors include material misstatements in the company's financial statements that were provided to shareholders during the July 25, 2018 initial public offering. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is currently Lead Counsel in a securities class action filed on May 28, 2019 that alleges that Bloom Energy's MSA accounting was false and misleading in the registration statement for the initial public offering and in public disclosures continuing through September 16, 2019 when the accounting was publicly challenged by a report published by Hindenburg Research. Levi & Korsinsky is representing the lead plaintiff and the class in seeking to recover investor losses caused by Bloom Energy's misleading accounting. Bloom Energy's admission that its historical accounting for its MSAs was wrong provides even further support for the allegations made by the lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky in the class action. Lead plaintiff will be filing an amended complaint to include Bloom Energy's restatement and admission of accounting errors as soon as Bloom Energy files its restated financial statements providing full details of its errors. This is currently anticipated to occur by March 16, 2020. Any investor who wants more information about Bloom Energy's restatement and its impact on the recovery of investor losses through this class action lawsuit should contact Levi & Korsinsky at: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BLUEHUB CAPITAL: Homeowners File Class Action in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Schairer, writing for WGBH, reports that a group of 14 homeowners filed a class-action suit in Massachusetts Superior Court against a Roxbury based non-profit, alleging that they are the victims of predatory lending practices while facing foreclosure or financial hardship. The lawsuit, financed by the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) was hand delivered to the offices of BlueHub Capital -- formerly Boston Community Capital -- and several of the homeowners allegedly victimized by its practices. Bruce Marks, NACA's founder and CEO, represents the homeowners who joined the lawsuit, and turned to BlueHub Capitol for assistance. Marks claimed in the suit that BlueHub engages in what he calls "a loan shark-type practice" called shared appreciation mortgage. "That means as the property appreciates, if the homeowner refinances or sells, they must in many cases pay BlueHub more than 50 percent of the appreciation in that property," he said. BlueHub Capital responded to a WGBH News inquiry with a statement disputing the merits of the lawsuit and defending its SUN -- or "Stabilizing Urban Neighborhoods" -- program, saying it has helped protect at-risk homeowners facing foreclosure and works to keep communities together. "Since its inception in 2009, the SUN initiative has successfully helped more than 1,100 families facing foreclosure and eviction keep their homes, repair their credit, and rebuild equity," the statement read. "SUN works by acquiring foreclosed properties before residents are evicted, then reselling these homes back to the homeowner on the same day with a mortgage they can afford and an obligation to share future appreciation. "Almost all of our borrowers repay their SUN loans on time and in full," it continued. "Reducing foreclosures also contributes to the neighborhood stabilization that we designed SUN to accomplish. A few borrowers have taken a different view. . . . We disagree." Homeowner Nardella Thomas, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she lost her house in Webster to foreclosure in 2012. BlueHub then agreed to buy it and sell it back to her with a mortgage set at a 6.375% interest rate. When Thomas tried to refinance her mortgage, she became aware of a section of her BlueHub contract that required Thomas to pay the non-profit a portion of her home's appreciation. Thomas said she did not understand the requirement, which cost her an extra $49,000 dollars. "It is absolutely taking advantage [of homeowners], these people claim to want to help people get back into the community," she said. "But I didn't know I was kissing the ring of the mortgage godfather." "Every predatory lender or a loan shark always says in the fine print, it says we can do this," he said. "That's standard practice and that doesn't mean it's right or legal." He added that there is the possibility of 1,100 others joining the class who were facing foreclosure and signed on with BlueHub to avoid homelessness. Marks also said the lawsuit is seeking an end to the shared appreciation mortgage practice and damages for homeowners. [GN] BROTHERS AND SON: Lopez-Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit ------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Lopez-Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brothers and Son, a Partnership, Jose Ramos and Martin Ramos, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00061 (N.D. Tex., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants operate as The Plaza Restaurants where Gonzales worked as a server. Plaintiff was paid a subminimum hourly wage and utilized tips generated from customers to supplement her hourly wage. Gonzales claims that management took out an illegal tip credit from her earned tips. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Fax: (817) 887-1878 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Carlier Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Carlier, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00266 (D. Conn., February 26, 2020), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Carlier alleges that Charter Communication sent him automated telemarketing calls promoting their television, internet and voice services without prior express written consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com COINBASE INC: Court Denies Leidel Motion to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON LEIDEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly v. COINBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a, Global Digital Asset Exchange (GDAX), Case No. 9:16-cv-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied as moot the following motions: -- Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; -- Motion for Summary Judgment; and -- Corrected Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Hearing. The Court on Dec. 10 entered an order granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. A Settlement Conference has been set for April 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Marra. If the Settlement is not approved, then the parties may refile these motions if appropriate, the Court said. Coinbase is a digital currency exchange headquartered in San Francisco, California.[CC] COMENITY BANK: Faces Ahmed TCPA Suit Over Unconsented Robocalls --------------------------------------------------------------- Mehar Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comenity Bank, Case No. 8:20-cv-00453 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice message to call a cellular telephone number without the recipient's express written consent. The Plaintiff contends that Comenity used a robodialer to call her on her cell phone but never obtained her requisite consent. She never had any relationship with Comenity and never owed them any money, she adds. Comenity is a debt collection corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. Evangeline Dech, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 800.400.6808 Facsimile: 800.520.5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com yana@kazlg.com evangeline@kazlg.com - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Blvd. Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: 813 500 1500 Facsimile: 813 435 2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com CONAIR CORP: Byron Sues Over Defective Hair Dryer ------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Byron and Karen Luedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conair Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02543, (D. N.J., March 9, 2020), brings claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Conair engages in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling hair dryers. Plaintiffs purchased Conair's Infiniti Pro 1875-watt hair dryer and claims that it sparked and burned during normal operation. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Tel: (856) 858-1770 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com jshah@sfmslaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com dlietz@wbmllp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com CORELLE BRANDS: Consumers to Voluntarily Dismiss Remaining Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that consumers alleging they bought defective Pyrex dishes prone to exploding are seeking to voluntarily dismiss remaining individual state law claims against Corelle Brands LLC after an Illinois federal judge granted the kitchenware company's bid to strike national class allegations in September. [GN] DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Hall Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deva Concepts, LLC. The case is captioned as DIANA HALL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, doing business as: DEVACURL, Case No. 2:20-cv-02318-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., March 3, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws. Deva manufactures hair care products. The Company produces and markets a range products for cleaning, conditioning, and styling curly hair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com The Defendant is represented by: Keith E. Smith, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7843 E-mail: smithkei@gtlaw.com DIRECT RECOVERY: Meyer Sues Over Unsolicited Spam Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, a Corporation; and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02140-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2020), alleges that the Company placed unsolicited spam text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff received a text message from the Defendants on her cellular telephone, number ending in -0208. During this time, the Defendants began to use her cellular telephone for the purpose of sending her spam text messages regarding debt collections using phone number 381-06, says the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that she had withdrawn any consent the Defendants might have believed prior to that point. She adds that despite her responses, the Defendants continue to send unwanted text messages to her. Direct Recovery is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com ELECTRICITY MAINE: Nears $132.5MM Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Darren Fishell, writing for Pine Tree Watch, reports that Mainers have spent $132.5 million more than they needed to on electricity over the past seven years. It's not because of a faulty billing system or a mistake. It's because of a legal market for reselling electricity to residential customers that blossomed in 2012 and since 2014 has struggled to compete with the power Mainers get by default, called the standard offer. The rate from so-called "competitive electricity providers," or CEPs, can be pennies or fractions of a penny different. When you count that difference across millions of kilowatt-hours and hundreds of thousands of customers in Maine, however, it adds up fast. As a result, the state's public advocate wants lawmakers to consider shutting down the entire market, and customers of the largest CEP -- Electricity Maine -- are nearing a settlement in a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit. Regulators are still considering penalties for the state's largest supplier. In 2018 alone, Maine residential customers paid CEPs $20 million they didn't need to, according to a Pine Tree Watch analysis of the latest annual reports filed with the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The total is $33.2 million higher when estimating for small business costs, using state power consumption data and federal data from 2012 to 2018. In lieu of competing on price, unscrupulous retail electricity salespeople have used animosity toward utilities like Central Maine Power Co. to their advantage, marketing their product as a way to reject the big utilities. But that is misleading, as CMP and Emera do not supply standard offer power. Sen. David Woodsome (R-York) has sponsored a bill to eliminate the retail competitive electricity market altogether, on behalf of Public Advocate Barry Hobbins' office. "I don't necessarily agree with completely getting rid of the competitive providers," Woodsome said. "I do think there's been a lot of problems with these companies." Since 2012, there have been legislative moves to rein in competitive power suppliers in Maine, as regulators in Maryland and Connecticut have taken action to curb abuses in the market. Maine lawmakers in 2017 passed a new consumer protection law placing limits on customer re-enrollments and price increases. Earlier this year, the public advocate recommended a one-year suspension and a $1 million fine against Electricity Maine, with a decision still pending from the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the sector. Maine separated utilities from power generators in 2000, but none of those suppliers targeted the residential market until 2011. Woodsome said that he has heard from constituents who are confused about who exactly is responsible for their power bill going up. The way the system works, that's understandably confusing. Utilities still handle all billing, so it's always CMP or Emera's name at the top. "CMP has enough issues without being blamed for something they're not responsible for," Woodsome said, referring to the company's various controversies, including a power line crossing the state and a bungled rollout of a new billing system. But to put the retail electricity problem in that perspective: the amount residential customers have lost to private electricity sellers could have paid for all of CMP's troubled billing system, twice. In other words, every household in Maine could instead get 21 one-pound lobsters, or six one-pound lobsters and a pair of chamois-lined Bean Boots, for the price of an electricity rip-off now in its seventh year. On the record Emile Clavet and Kevin Dean, two serial entrepreneurs based in Auburn, pioneered the residential power market in 2011 when they founded Electricity Maine. In their first year, they saved Mainers $3.3 million and quickly grew to more than 150,000 customers. The rates they charged that year were 5.7 percent lower than the standard offer. By 2018, Electricity Maine had cost its residential customers $100 million more than the standard offer. The company led a surge in residential customers enrolling with CEPs, which has tapered off in recent years. Customers have since sued Electricity Maine and its founders, alleging they were deceived into higher-cost power plans over multiple years. The case is nearing a settlement, according to court filings. Though Clavet and Dean sold the company in 2016 to the Texas-based Spark Energy, neither has spoken out publicly to account for Clavet's 2011 lie to customers: "We will always beat the standard offer. You'll never, ever pay more than the standard offer, or we won't be back." The filings reveal contradictions in Clavet's public statements. While he derided a report by regulators confirming how much his customers would have saved with default power price, he also described trying to sign up new customers as a "futile effort" because Electricity Maine had higher prices in 2016 and 2017.But Clavet was forced to speak in court filings last year, in response to the class-action lawsuit and a civil suit he filed against his now estranged business partner, Dean, over a land deal in Texas. In a July deposition, Clavet provided his version of what happened in 2014, when the company began violating his public promise. "The way that [regulators] procure [the] standard offer changed so we were competing with a different product," Clavet said. "We would compare ourselves to standard offer for different reasons at different times because standard offer was evolving and changing continuously." In 2013, the company's radio ads stated: "Just grab your power bill. If on page two it says 'standard offer,' you're paying too much." Regulatory records show how the company pivoted to new marketing tactics after prices began to creep above the standard offer, emphasizing being a local, Auburn-based company that supported area nonprofits. The new strategy involved quietly re-enrolling existing customers at higher rates and sending renewal notification emails. Internal records obtained in the class-action lawsuit showed about half of the company's customers never opened their emailed renewal notices. The re-enrollments did not turn the tide, however. According to Dean, "the power companies had losses of over $14,000,000 and were in trouble" in 2015. Meanwhile, supplier Dead River Co., which had a base of existing home heating customers, saw where electricity prices were headed and called it quits in 2014, writing to customers: "The escalating cost of natural gas has contributed to the increased cost of electricity. As a result, many electricity supply providers increased their rates to levels above the Standard Offer, costing consumers more on their energy bills. Dead River Company upheld its promise to offer you savings by keeping our rates below the Standard Offer." "It was a little bit discouraging because, you know, to get anywhere really with it, you had to sell a lot of electricity at a pretty strong price compared to what the current market was to a fair number of customers using, you know, a method, which for us was mostly direct mail that yielded very few results," Clavet said. At the time of Electricity Maine's sale, Spark estimated it would cost about $80 to acquire a new customer. Suppliers like Ambit Energy have defrayed that cost using a multi-level marketing approach, where they give customers benefits for turning around and selling power plans to their friends and family, primarily over social media. Clavet and Dean had millions at stake. Their sale to Spark contained an earnout, an arrangement to incentivize Clavet and Dean to continue to build the company's customer base as the sale was pending. In Clavet's words from the witness stand, the earnout depended on keeping "so many customers with a certain profit margin." That "certain profit margin" was at least 34 percent higher than the going power rate of 6.7 cents, according to sale documents. Spark provided Clavet and Dean a $2 million budget for that purpose. Clavet described that marketing as a "futile effort," because he felt the market was saturated with roughly one in four households signed up. "Spark had given us a budget to go out and market and try to get those new incremental customers, but it was kind of like banging your head against the wall," Clavet said. After $1 million was spent, Clavet said he suggested to Spark that they give him and Dean $500,000 "and [Spark] can keep the other half because this isn't going to work," Clavet said. Spark didn't accept the offer. During that time, Clavet claimed Dean "was busy chasing new, individual electricity customers in an effort to hit Spark's milestones," an effort he added "did not work, for reasons that were apparent to [Dean] and [Clavet] heading into the effort." Clavet said he was chasing down big clients during that time, including the AFL-CIO, the United States' largest federation of labor unions. In 2017, the company did land such a deal, supplying power to state government at below-market rates. Meanwhile, the company's average rate for residential customers was 36 percent above the going rate. Clavet did not respond to multiple requests for comment on his testimony and how he would advise customers to make the comparison between the standard offer and retail supply plans. How we made the comparison in price Every year, electricity suppliers report their revenue and total power sales. From the two annual numbers, broken into groups based on customer size, one can calculate the rate that the supplier's customers paid, on average. The rate summarizes all of the complicated activity that might be going on within that number, for customers that signed up in the middle of a year or had their rates change from one month to the next, called variable plans. Those annual summary reports also break out how much power was supplied in each of Maine's two regional power grids — most of the state is connected to the ISO-New England grid. Aroostook County and parts of Washington County are part of a separate regional grid system. The annual summaries for each supplier can then be compared with the going standard offer rates in each different grid system, like so: This doesn't consider how retail supply plans can vary from the standard offer (though they rarely do). For instance, they can have "clean power" attributes, whether the contract is actually backed by a renewable energy project or whether the premium just pays for the cost of renewable energy credits. The PUC report indicated that Clearview Electric was the only provider to only offer such plans through 2016. For other suppliers, who may offer one such renewable plan, it's not clear what share of customers have signed up. Public reporting doesn't show that and industry groups have declined to disclose just how many of their customers choose such plans, as opposed to customers who are getting supply that has no distinction from the standard offer supply. [GN] ENERGEN RESOURCES: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that in the case styled Anderson Living Trust v. Energen Resources Corporation, No. 13-cv-909, 2019 WL 6618168 (D.N.M. Dec. 5, 2019), the court determines that differences in oil and gas lease agreements did not preclude certification of a class that brought claims for underpayment of royalties under the various lease agreements. In Anderson, the plaintiffs, consisting of Colorado royalty owners with interests in numerous oil and gas lease agreements, sought to certify a class "based on a single underpayment theory, namely that [the defendant] failed to pay additional royalties on gas used as fuel." On the issue of commonality, the defendant claimed that "variations in the lease language preclude a finding of commonality." The court disagreed and determined that the leases created a single and uniform obligation: to pay Colorado royalty owners royalties on gas used as fuel. Similarly, the defendant also argued that the differences in gas quality, and the attendant issue of marketability, defeated commonality. Yet the court again disagreed and determined that those differences related "more to the calculation of damages, which is not before the Court." Therefore, the court determined there was sufficient commonality. On the issue of predominance, the defendant advanced a similar argument that "differences in lease provisions regarding post-production use of fuel gas means that damages must be calculated individually, and that different damages defeat predominance." The court again disagreed and determined that the predominant question was whether the defendant owed the class royalty payments and failed to pay, and that individual damage calculations, standing alone, cannot defeat class certification. Finally, the court considered the issues of superiority and ascertainability, concluding that individual lawsuits would be too expensive and that all putative class members were present lease owners who could be readily identified. The court agreed with plaintiff that it does not make sense that the defendant would pay royalties without knowing who it was paying. After determining that the plaintiff class satisfied all requirements of Rule 23, the court certified the class. [GN] FASTENAL COMPANY: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FASTENAL COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-000431 (Filed Jan. 21, 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 March 4, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00345-NONE-SAB to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide compliant rest breaks and/or pay missed rest break premiums, in violation of the California Labor Code. Fastenal is an American company based in Winona, Minnesota. The Company distributes goods used by other businesses, which has over 2,200 branches throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Europe, along with 13 distribution centers.[BN] Defendant Fastenal Company is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Erica J. Chee, 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: evan.moses@ogletree.com erica.chee@ogletree.com FLUOR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) resulting from allegations that Fluor may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On February 18, 2020, Fluor disclosed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is investigating the Company and as a result, Fluor's Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2019 would be delayed. Fluor revealed that the SEC requested documents and information related to projects for which Fluor recorded charges in the second quarter of 2019. Fluor also stated that it is reviewing prior period reporting and it is possible it may have material errors in financial statements. On this news, Fluor's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on February 18, 2020, injuring investors. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Fluor investors. If you purchased shares of Fluor please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1779.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] FORT SMITH, AR: Can Compel Resident in Class Suit to Provide Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Saccente, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that Fort Smith can compel a resident in a class-action lawsuit to provide individual notice to other affected residents. The high court released the decision on Feb. 27. The case returns to Sebastian County Circuit Judge Stephen Tabor. City Attorney Jerry Canfield of the Fort Smith law firm Daily and Woods said on Feb. 27 that "we believe the class should be given notice of the pendency of the lawsuit, and be given opportunities to participate as a member of the class or to not participate as a member of the class." Monzer Mansour, a Fayetteville-based attorney who -- along with W. Whitfield Hyman of the King Law Group in Fort Smith -- represents the plaintiff in the lawsuit, said via email that the Feb. 27 ruling concerned a procedural matter that was not going to address the lawsuit's actual merits. "We respect the court's decision and we look forward to moving on to the merits of the lawsuit at the trial court level," Mansour said. Fort Smith resident Jennifer Merriott filed the lawsuit against the city, seeking to recover funds from a recycling program. She contended that the city was guilty of "illegal exaction" and "unjust enrichment." The lawsuit said the city hid from sanitation customers the redirection of recyclables to the landfill. She sought class certification for the lawsuit. The city of Fort Smith responded to the motion in October 2017, and it separately moved for summary judgment. The Sebastian County Circuit Court certified class action for both claims the following January, covering all Fort Smith residential sanitation fee customers who paid any such fees to the city from Oct. 1, 2014, to May 1, 2017. The circuit court denied the city's motion for summary judgment three months later. The city in October 2018 asked the judge to compel class notice on the two claims, arguing that notice was required under Rule 23(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and under due process. Merriott contended that the city waived notice by moving for summary judgment before the class certification and notice. The circuit court agreed, holding that under the case of National Enterprises, Inc. v. Kessler, the timing of the city's motion for summary judgment waived notice by moving for summary judgment before class certification and notice. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the city waived "the right to compel class notice by moving for summary judgement prior to notice, even if the motion is denied and no decision on the merits has been rendered," according to the opinion written by Associate Justice Shawn Womack. Justice Josephine Hart wrote a concurring opinion with the decision. Associate Justice Robin Wynne, joined by Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, wrote a dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court decision is CV-19-255 and is accessible at https://bit.ly/38ftUHw. The Sebastian County Circuit Court case is docket no. 66FCV-17-637 and is accessible at https://bit.ly/2TrRUlr. [GN] FRITO-LAY NORTH: Improperly Labels Potato Chips, Svensrud Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMI SVENSRUD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01136526-CU-NP-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., March 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants mislead consumers by failing to label their Ruffles Cheddar & Sour Cream-flavored potato chips as containing artificial flavoring, in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the product contains artificial butter flavor. In fact, cheddar cheese, one of the products "distinguishable characterizing flavors," also contains artificial flavor. The Plaintiff purchased Ruffles, Cheddar & Sour Cream potato chips for personal consumption during the statutory time period for the claims alleged. She purchased these chips in reliance of the representations made by Frito-Lay. Had the Company labeled its product accurately, she would not have purchased the product or would not have paid the full purchase price, says the complaint. Frito-Lay is a worldwide distributor of snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 949 614 5830 Facsimile: 949 271 4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com GALLAGHER BASSETT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Gallagher Bassett Services, alleging that the company failed to accurately calculate and record overtime compensation for their hourly employees. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Gallagher Bassett Services, failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to its employees. The Gallagher Bassett Services, lawsuit Case No. CIVDS2004140, is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California. A copy of the complaint can be accessed by clicking here. The class action complaint alleges that Gallagher Bassett Services failed to accurately pay all required overtime compensation for work performed by the PLAINTIFF and other Claims Adjusters and therefore, allegedly violated the California Labor Code. Cal. Lab. Code § 510 further provides that employees in California shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and/or more than forty (40) hours per workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. According to the class action complaint, the company's non-exempt employees were also allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks due as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work. The complaint alleges that the company did not provide their employees who forfeited meal breaks additional compensation. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims, contact one of their attorneys today. *** THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT *** [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Portland Over 5.3L V8 Engine Design Flaws ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that back in December, a class-action lawsuit was filed against General Motors in the U.S. District Court in Ohio that claimed its 5.3-liter LC9 V8 engine burns high amounts of oil and has other design flaws. Now, a separate class-action suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland for an identical reason. Just like the Ohio case, this case claims the 5.3L V8 engines found in a number of 2010-2014 model-year GM trucks and SUVs has piston rings that do not maintain tension well enough to keep oil in the crankcase. Both suits also allege the PCV system can vacuum engine oil out from the valvetrain and expel it into the intake, where the oil is then taken in and burned in the combustion chambers. The Portland suit, first reported on by Car Complaints, says the engine is prone to experiencing further damage due to low oil including "ring wear, lifter collapse, bent pushrods, camshaft wear, valve wear, rod bearing wear, rod breakage, wristpin wear, wristpin breakage, crankshaft wear and main bearing wear." Additionally, both proceedings claim affected trucks and SUVs have defective oil monitoring systems, as the system only monitors temperature and engine speed to estimate oil quality and not oil levels in general. The owner could presumably just open the hood to check the oil levels using the dipstick, it is worth noting. As we pointed out when the Ohio lawsuit was filed, GM actually redesigned its 5.3-liter V8 engine after the 2014 model year. Newer versions of the engine use redesigned piston rings and valve covers and have a shield that deflects oil away from the piston skirts. GM also added an oil level sensor so oil level can be monitored from the cockpit. Vehicles involved in the Portland class action lawsuits were all built between 2010 and 2014. They include: 2010-2013 GMC Sierra 2010-2014 GMC Yukon 2010-2014 GMC Yukon XL 2010-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche 2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban 2010-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe Both suits also allege that GM knew about the oil consumption problems with the 5.3L V8 engines, evidenced by service bulletins and owner complaints, but chose to not act on the matter. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Arizona AG Challenges Wi-Fi Privacy Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Bourque, writing for KJZZ91.5, reports that the Arizona Attorney General's Office asked a federal judge to reject Google's proposed settlement over a 2010 privacy scandal. A 2010 class-action lawsuit alleges Google's street-view cars collected consumer data -- including passwords, usernames and e-mails -- off of Wi-Fi networks, without consumers' knowledge or permission. Google proposed a $13 million settlement that would pay attorneys and private groups - but not victims. Brnovich says that doesn't do enough for the affected consumers. "Settlements like this leave consumers without a leg to stand on, and help propagate the ongoing trend of companies taking our privacy concerns for granted," he said in a statement. "Google admitted to violating people's privacy, and instead of paying harmed consumers, the tech giant wants to give millions of dollars to organizations that have nothing to do with the litigation." Google argues that identifying the 60 million people would require sifting through 300 million bits of data, an unfair burden that they proposed the settlement to avoid. [GN] GREIF INC: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Pham ERISA Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Dau Pham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREIF, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00693 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing to provide the Plaintiff with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, Greif chose not to use the model form--presumably to save Greif money because COBRA coverage is inherently expensive for employers, the Plaintiff asserts. In fact, according to one Congressional research service study, "The average claim costs for COBRA beneficiaries exceeded the average claim for an active employee by 53%. The average annual health insurance cost per active employee was $7,190, and the COBRA cost was $10,988.14. The Spencer & Associates analysts contend that this indicates that the COBRA population is sicker than active-covered employees and that the 2% administrative fee allowed in the law is insufficient to offset the difference in actual claims costs." The deficient COBRA notices at issue in this lawsuit both confused and misled him, the Plaintiff says. He adds that it also caused him economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries. Greif, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Greif Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute, according to the complaint. Simply put, the Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the law. Rather than including all information required by law in a single notice "written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant," the Defendant's COBRA notification process instead offers only part of the legally required information. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and provided by law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and was covered based on his health plan through the Defendant. The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters in Delaware but is registered to do business in the State of Illinois and is the Plan sponsor.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Rachel Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: 305-610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Must Face Class Action Over Student Abuses --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge sided with a group of former students who sued a Christian boarding school over abuse they suffered decades ago. Justice Janet Leiper said on Feb. 27 that the now-defunct Grenville Christian College will have to pay yet-to-be-determined damages to the former students. The school in Brockville, Ont., advertised itself as an Anglican institution, and had ties to an American sect called the Community of Jesus. Former students testified during the class-action trial that they were subjected to exorcisms and physical beatings. Leiper says the school knowingly created an "abusive, authoritarian and rigid culture which exploited and controlled developing adolescents." The class includes students who lived in residence between 1973 and 1997. The school was closed in 2007. [GN] HILTON WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Hilton Worldwide Inc. has urged a Washington, D.C., federal judge not to certify a proposed ERISA class action claiming the company's pension plan shortchanged retirees by following improper vesting rules, labeling the workers' three proposed subclasses "unwieldy," "ill-defined" and "unworkable".[GN] HOUSTON ASTROS: Fan Files $1-Mil. Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Jason Rowan, writing for Yardbarker, reports that a Houston Astros fan has filed a class action lawsuit against the organization on behalf of himself and fellow season-ticket holders. The suit, filed by Adam Wallach on Feb. 14, seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The filings accuse the Astros of "deceptively overcharging" for season tickets while cheating by stealing opponents' signs. Wallach was a season-ticket holder beginning in 2017 -- the key season in which the Astros employed sophisticated sign-stealing methods on the way to a World Series victory -- through 2020. He adds in his court filings that the Astros put a "deficient product" on the field due to the widespread cheating. "Through the lawsuit," reports KPRC 2 Houston, "Wallach is looking to recover damages for he calls 'inappropriate increases in the . . . season ticket prices, diminished value of their personal seat licenses and an injunction prohibiting (season ticket holders) from raising season ticket prices for at least two years.' "The class-action lawsuit is open to all full or partial season ticket holders and accuses the Astros of gross negligence, breach of contract and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Trade Act, among other things." The lawsuit, believed to be the first of its kind, argues that season-ticket holders are owed refunds because the Astros knowingly engaged in a wholly deceptive violation of MLB rules. Further, the suit demands that the Astros do not raise season-ticket prices for two years. The Astros' cheating scandal unsurprisingly continues to be the talk of Major League Baseball as spring training gets underway amid the fallout of the league's damning investigation into the organization's sign-stealing practices. It is almost certain that things will keep getting uglier for some time as the backlash against the Astros continues. What's more, while a novel concept, it stands to reason that the class action lawsuit against the under-siege organization is not likely to go anywhere in the long run. That being said, the filing of a suit of this nature does serve as a sobering reminder that the Astros even alienated many of their own fans with their conduct. [GN] IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Howard Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EBONY HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC. and IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00079-JDL (D. Me., March 5, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay customer support workers (CSWs) for their pre-shift time spent starting up their computers, logging into required computer software applications, and reviewing work-related e-mails and other information. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective and class were employed by the Defendants as CSWs, and were responsible for handling inbound telephone calls from the Defendants' clients and customers. Some CSWs work in call centers (including in Westbrook, Maine), and other CSWs, like the Plaintiff, work remotely from their home offices. The Defendants are an American multinational company engaged in the development, manufacture, and distribution of products and services for the companion animal veterinary, livestock and poultry, water testing, and dairy markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS MCDANIEL & CAMPO LLC, PA 90 Bridge Street, Suite 100 Westbrook, ME 04092 Telephone: (207) 591-5747 E-mail: tdouglas@douglasmcdaniel.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Young BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as ALTAMESE YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE COMMUNITIES, LLC and BELLEVILLE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & NURSING CENTER, LLC d/b/a INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE OF BELLEVILLE, Case No. 19L742 (Filed Oct. 23, 2019), was removed from the State of Illinois Circuit Court, County of St. Clair, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March 4, 2020. The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00244 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using a timekeeping system that allegedly collected, stored and used the biometric identifiers and biometric information of individuals she claims the Defendants employed. Integrity Healthcare is a healthcare management company. Belleville is a provider of behavioral health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Werman, Esq. Zachary Flowerree, Esq. Sarah Arendt, Esq. Jacqueline Villanueva, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com jvillanueva@flsalaw.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Jody Kahn Mason, Esq. Jason A. Selvey, Esq. Jackson Lewis P.C. 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 787 4949 Facsimile: 312.787.4995 E-mail: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com INTERSECT ENT: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of Intersect ENT, Inc. (NASDAQ: XENT) against certain of its officers and directors. Specifically, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court earlier this year against the Company on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intersect from August 1, 2018 and May 6, 2019, (the "Class Period"). According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect lacked adequate reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had access to SINUVA, Intersect's sinus implant; (2) Intersect's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3) Intersect's sales representatives were less focused on driving sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect's SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking reimbursement; (5) Intersect would increase staffing to address these issues; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Intersect's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Intersect, holding shares before August 1, 2018, you may have standing to hold Intersect harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] IQ FORMULATIONS: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Reviews, reported that in the case styled Debernardis v. IQ Formulations LLC, 942 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2019), the Eleventh circuit allows putative class action based on benefit-of-bargain rationale in case involving dietary supplements. Plaintiffs asserted claims against IQ Formulations LLC and Europa Sports Products, Inc. under (i) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (ii) Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (iii) New York General Business Law § 349, et. seq.; (iv) common law fraud, and (v) unjust enrichment. The dietary supplements in questions contain MethylPentane Citrate ("DMBA"). Plaintiffs alleged that DMBA was a new dietary ingredient prohibited under the FDCA. Defendants did not assert any of the exceptions under the FDCA; accordingly, the issue was whether purchasing a supplement banned under federal law constituted an injury in fact. The Eleventh Circuit held that "[a] person experiences an economic injury when, as a result of a deceptive act or an unfair practice, he is deprived of the benefit of the bargain." The court concluded that a supplement containing an adulterated substance had no value, and as such, the plaintiffs suffered an economic injury because they were deprived of the benefit of the bargain. The court reasoned that "some defects so fundamentally affect the intended use of a product as to render it valueless." The court pointed out that the Seventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in a 2011 case, ruling that a product that cannot be legally sold in the United States is not just diminished in value, but has no value at all. Based upon that rationale, the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to establish Article III standing to bring the claim. Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) Eleventh Circuit determines that standing of class members is relevant to certification. Cordoba sued DIRECTV and its telemarketing vendor, Telecel Marketing Solutions, Inc. alleging he had received telemarketing calls on DIRECTV's behalf in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. Cordoba alleged that he received 18 calls despite his consistent demand that he not be contacted. He sought to represent "a class of all persons who received more than one telemarketing call from Telecel on behalf of DIRECTV while it failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list in violation of ... FCC regulations." Telecel admitted that the company failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list as required by FCC regulation. The trial court certified two classes of plaintiffs: (1) all individuals who received more than one telemarketing call on or after Oct. 27, 2011, when Telecel failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list in violation of 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.12000(d)(1)-(6); and (2) all individuals whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry who received calls from Telecel after Oct. 27, 2011. The second class of individuals were not part of the appeal, since their claims did not raise any issues with respect to class certification. Reversing certification, the Eleventh Circuit held that, although the plaintiff had standing, the trial court had not addressed whether putative class members had standing. Individuals who received a telemarketing call but who had not requested that their names be placed on a do-not-call list did not have any apparent injury. "If many of the putative class members could not show that they suffered an injury fairly traceable to the defendant's misconduct, then they would not be able to recover, and that is assuredly a relevant factor that a district court must consider when deciding whether to certify a class." Because there was a real possibility that a large number, perhaps most individuals in the class, had not suffered any injury based on the defendant's conduct, certification was not appropriate, and the court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its analysis. [GN] KNOX COUNTY, TN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Amble" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD COULSON, JOHN HICKS, ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE, JESSICA MASE, JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT THOMAS, and MATTHEW WALLS, v. KNOX COUNTY, Case No. 3:18-CV-538-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order: 1. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion to amend their response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and for leave to file excess, to the extent that the Court considers Plaintiffs' second amended complaint the operative complaint; 2. denying as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint and the motions related thereto; 3. proceeding on the Plaintiff Hicks's claim that Defendant's video visitation policy violates his constitutional rights; 4. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 5. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for hearing on class certification. According to Judge Varlan, "the Court would be amenable to granting class certification for a claim that Defendant's video visitation policy violates the constitutional rights of the inmates to whom Defendant has applied or will apply it. However, the amended motion for class certification seeks certification of 'the class of people previously incarcerated, presently incarcerated, or who will be incarcerated, at the Knox County Jail facilities' and two sub-classes of (1) 'pretrial detainees' and (2) 'TDOC-sentenced inmates who are incarcerated or who will be incarcerated at these locations.' This proposed class is too broad for the sole remaining claim, as the second amended complaint specifies that Defendant implemented this policy on April 14, 2015 and, if Defendant does implement this video visitation policy in the future, the policy will not affect all future inmates. Moreover, it is unclear if any subclasses would be needed for this remaining claim. Additionally, [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(c)(1)(B) requires that if the Court decides to enter a certification order, that order must not only define the class, but also appoint class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). While it seems likely that the attorneys who have appeared in this matter on behalf of all Plaintiffs also seek to represent any certified class under Rule 23(g), they have not made any such request, nor have they provided information relevant to the issues that the Court "must consider" in determining whether to appoint them as counsel Thus, the amended motion to certify class will be denied without prejudice. Moreover, as the remaining issues regarding class certification can be easily addressed in a motion, the motion for hearing on the class certification will be denied."[CC] LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153. In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California (Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153). The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded. Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub without their knowledge and consent. LendingClub has not yet filed a formal response to plaintiff's complaint. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LIFEENERGY LLC: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFEENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00642-SO (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. LifeEnergy has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its implementing regulations by placing, or having placed on its behalf, prerecorded calls to cellular telephone subscribers who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or who have expressly requested not to receive such calls, says the complaint. By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this Complaint, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury. Plaintiff Jayson Rogers is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. LifeEnergy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Phone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com LOW VA RATES: Faces Amann TCPA Suit in Southern District of Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Low VA Rates, LLC. The case is captioned as Erica Amann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Low VA Rates, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00180-MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 3, 2020). The lawsuit demands $9.999 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Low VA offers home loan to veterans and military families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES, LLC 1470 Apple Hill Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2715 E-mail: brian@gilesfirm.com LUBRIZOL ADVANCED: Falsely Markets FlowGuard Gold, Jones Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN JONES and JANET JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC. and CHARLOTTE PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, Case No.: 1:20-cv-00511 (N.D. Ohio, March 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged false advertisement of FlowGuard Gold Plumbing System. The Defendants market and warrant that the Plumbing System is tough and reliable, and meets industry standards. The Defendants tout that the Plumbing System is the "most well-established non-metallic piping product in the market" and that "millions of homes and businesses around the world trust" FlowGuard, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants provided a reasonable expectation to consumers and the industry that the Plumbing System would be durable and useful for an extended period of time. They add that contrary to the Defendants' advertising and representations, however, the Plumbing System becomes brittle early in its expected useful life and is prone to cracking and shattering. As a result of these defects, the Plumbing System leaks and causes severe property damage, according to the complaint. Yet, the Defendants continue to manufacture and sell FlowGuard to the public, continue to make false representations, and continue to improperly reject warranty claims, despite the fact that the Plumbing System is defective and will fail, costing consumers substantial removal, replacement and repair costs. The Plaintiffs bring this action to seek redress for damages caused by the Defendants' wrongful conduct. The Defendants design, test, manufacture, advertise, sell, warrant and distribute chlorinated polyvinyl chloride pipe and fitting plumbing systems under the brand name FlowGuard Gold (TM) (FlowGuard or the Plumbing System) throughout the United States for installation in homes and other structures.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch Jacob M. Polakoff BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net - and - Charles J. LaDuca Brendan S. Thompson CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com LUCKIN COFFEE: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Luckin Coffee Inc. ("Luckin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LK) between November 13, 2019, and January 31, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Luckin securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Luckin Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from other products were inflated; (ii) Luckin's financial results thus overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently unreliable; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published an anonymous report alleging that Luckin had fabricated certain of the Company's financial performance metrics, beginning in the third quarter of 2019 (3Q19) (the Muddy Waters Report). The Muddy Waters Report purported to cite smoking gun evidence, including, inter alia, thousands of hours of store video, thousands of customer receipts, and diligent monitoring of the Company's mobile application metrics, which allegedly showed that, since 3Q19, Luckin had inflated its per-store per-day sales figures, its net selling price per item, its advertising expenses, and its revenue contribution from other products. On this news, Luckin's American depositary share (ADS) price fell $3.91 per share, or 10.74%, to close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020. If you purchased LK securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/luckincoffeeinc-lk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-251/apply or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- http://www.bernlieb.com-- has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years.[GN] LUCKY STORES: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Beasley Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARK BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07144-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The instant case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Beasley, a California citizen, as a purchaser and consumer of Coffee-mate, a line of coffee-creamer products. Beasley alleges Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. "manufactures, markets, and sells" Coffee-mate. He also alleges that four retailers, namely, Defendants Lucky, Save Mart Super Markets, Save Mart Companies, Inc. ("SMCI"), and The Kroger Co., sold Coffee-mate at their grocery stores throughout California and that, during the class period, he purchased Coffee-mate from grocery stores owned by said retailers. According to Beasley, all flavors of Coffee-mate, other than the "Natural Bliss line," contained, during the class period, an artificial form of trans fat and unsafe food additive, specifically, partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO"), and during the class period, Coffee-mate's labels bore unauthorized nutrient content claims, namely, "0g Trans Fat" and/or "IT'S GOOD TO KNOW: 0g TRANS FAT/SERV," which language, Beasley alleges, was part of an intentional, long-term campaign to deceptively market Coffee-mate as healthful and free of trans fat. Based on these allegations, Beasley, on Oct. 29, 2018, filed his initial complaint in the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. On Nov. 26, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to federal court. On Dec. 19, 2018, Beasley filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), in which he challenged the Defendants' manufacture and distribution of Coffee-mate, on the basis that (1) it contains PHO ("use claims") and (2) it was falsely labeled with "0g Trans Fat" statements ("labeling claims"). By order filed Sept. 16, 2019, the Court dismissed the use claims with prejudice, finding those claims barred by the doctrine of conflict preemption, and dismissed the labeling claims with leave to amend, finding the allegations in support thereof deficient on a number of grounds. On Oct. 4, 2019, Beasley filed the SAC, in which he asserts the following four Causes of Action: (1) Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) Breach of Express Warranty; and (4) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Beasley brings these claims both individually and on behalf of the following putative class: all citizens of California who purchased in California, between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2014, Coffee-mate containing the nutrient content claim "0g Trans Fat" and containing partially hydrogenated oil. Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Beasley has filed opposition, to which the Defendants have replied. The Defendants argue that (1) Beasley has failed to adequately allege statutory standing to bring his UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims; (2) each of Beasley's claims is time-barred; and (3) none of Beasley's claims meets the heightened pleading requirements for fraud under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On review, Judge Chesney finds that Beasley has adequately pleaded statutory standing to bring his claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. The Judge finds that the new allegations sufficient to show Beasley sought a product free of trans fat and that his decision to purchase Coffee-mate was made in reliance on the "0g Trans Fat" label. As for timeliness of the claims, Judge Chesney finds that as cross-jurisdictional tolling is not recognized under California law, then she concludes the filing of the Backus action in the Northern District of California did not toll the statutes of limitations applicable to Beasley's claims. Accordingly, Beasley is not entitled to American Pipe tolling. Judge Chesney also finds that although Beasley alleges Nestle actively impeded [his] ability to discover the dangerous effects of Coffee-mate, the only active impeding alleged is Nestle's failure to disclose the alleged false labelling, which lack of disclosure, is insufficient to support a finding of fraudulent concealment. Accordingly, the Judge Chesney finds Beasley is not entitled to tolling under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. The Judge then finds that Beasley has adequately pleaded delayed discovery. Beasley has alleged Nestle engaged in the challenged "labeling practices" for "many years," that he has no training as to nutrient content claim regulations promulgated by the FDA, and that he reasonably relied on the assumption that the Defendants would not manufacture and sell a product with prominent, false, unauthorized, and unlawful statements about its ingredients. Read in the light most favorable to Beasley, the Judge understands such allegations to set forth a reasonable belief that Nestle either would not have risked openly violating the law for such an extended period of time or would not have been allowed to do so without regulatory repercussions. Finally, Judge Chesney finds that the SAC, although not a model pleading, is specific enough to give the Defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged. In sum, the SAC, read in the light most favorable to Beasley, adequately alleges the "the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged," and, accordingly, satisfies the requirements of Rule 9(b). For the reasons stated, Judge Chesney denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/sM8BZl from Leagle.com. Mark Beasley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Weston -- gweston@winston.com -- & Andrew Christopher Hamilton, The Weston Firm. Lucky Stores, Inc. & The Save Mart Companies, Inc., Defendants, represented by Dale Joseph Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP. Nestle USA, Inc., Save Mart Super Markets & The Kroger Company, Defendants, represented by Keri Elizabeth Borders -- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Dale Joseph Giali, Mayer Brown LLP. MACY'S WEST: Valdovinos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as PEDRO VALDOVINOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MACY'S WEST STORES INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04053 (Filed Jan. 31, 2020), 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 March 4, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02115 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendants for failure to provide meal periods rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Macy's operates department stores. The Company offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty products, and house wares.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shirley D. Deutsch, Esq. SCHWARTZ & DEUTSCH, LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-9400 Facsimile: (213) 236-9499 E-mail: deutsch@sdllp.net - and - Chad D. Dilker, Esq. MACY'S LAW DEPARTMENT 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 342-6379 Facsimile: (314) 342-6366 E-mail: chad.silker@macys.com MCCORMICK & CO: Black Pepper Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Consumer rights law firm FeganScott announced on February 18, 2020, the preliminary approval of a $2.5 million class action settlement on behalf of purchasers of certain black pepper products in California, Florida and Missouri. The settlement will resolve consumer claims that McCormick & Company under-filled its black pepper products, as well as certain store-brand black pepper products, shorting customers as a result. The lawsuit, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claimed that the company under-filled black pepper products, reducing the amount of black pepper in spice tins by 25% and grinders by 19% without adjusting prices or alerting consumers, a practice known as slack filling. "We alleged that, rather than change the size of the tin to reflect the reduced fill, McCormick misleadingly used the same traditional-sized tins that had been used for decades, giving the false impression that nothing had changed," said Fegan. "While McCormick has denied that its conduct was misleading, the settlement will provide consumers the equivalent of a full refund for their purchases -- or more than 100% of their actual damages, subject to the number of people that make claims." "As an iconic brand, consumers have placed their trust in McCormick for years," said Fegan. "We hope that this settlement reminds companies that they should always operate with consumers' interest in mind, and when they don't, consumers will hold them accountable." If you purchased McCormick brand or private label brand black pepper since March 1, 2015 in California, Florida or Missouri, please visit www.blackpeppersettlement.com to learn more and to file a claim. About FeganScott FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide. FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties accountable. Case: 1:15-mc-01825-ESH [GN] MELALEUCA INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Wainwright Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOANN WAINWRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MELALEUCA, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02330-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted both Melaleuca's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to dismiss the action. Joann Wainwright is a California resident. In 2019, she created an online account with Melaleuca and registered to work as an Independent Marketing Executive for the company. In completing her registration, Wainwright clicked a box that indicated she agreed to and acknowledged that she read the terms and conditions outlined in the Independent Marketing Executive Agreement, Statement of Policies, and Compensation Plan. Wainwright stopped working for Melaleuca six months later. She contends Melaleuca misclassified her as an independent contractor and, consequently, deprived her of several benefits employees are promised under the California Labor Code. Wainwright filed a putative class action against Melaleuca in Sacramento County Superior Court. Her eight-count complaint alleged Melaleuca violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Melaleuca timely removed the case to federal court. It then filed a motion to compel arbitration and either dismiss or stay the underlying suit. Wainwright opposed the motion and Melaleuca filed a reply. Melaleuca argues the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement when Wainwright enrolled as an Independent Marketing Executive for the company. It further contends the arbitration agreement contains an enforceable delegation clause that prevents the Court from adjudicating the question of whether Wainwright's claims fall within the arbitration agreement's reach. Wainwright disagrees. She argues that the Court must determine whether her claims are arbitrable because the agreement's delegation clause is unenforceable. Specifically, Wainwright maintains the delegation clause did not "clearly and unmistakably" delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the delegation clause is unconscionable. Judge Mendez is not persuaded by either defense. First, Judge Mendez finds that the question is not whether resolving all of Wainwright's claims under Idaho law would violate the forum's fundamental policy; rather, it is whether conducting an unconscionability analysis of the contract's delegation clause under Idaho law would violate the forum's fundamental policy. Wainwright failed to identify a distinction between California's and Idaho's unconscionability laws that is so substantial it amounts to a fundamental policy difference. Given her inability to satisfy this threshold requirement, the choice-of-law inquiry ends here. Idaho law applies. Second, Judge Mendez finds that courts interpret contracts by looking first to their plain language. A plain reading of Policy Section 45 indicates that the parties agreed to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator even after Wainwright terminated her work with Melaleuca. The delegation is clear and unmistakable. Unlike the plaintiff in Peleg v. Nieman Marcus Group, Inc., Wainwright fails to identify any part of the contract that truly undermines the clarity of the provision. Judge Mendez therefore finds the parties' contract clearly and unmistakably delegated questions related to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration agreement to an arbitrator. Third, Judge Mendez finds the delegation clause contained in the Statement of Policies is enforceable. The clause delegates all issues relating to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration provision to the arbitrator. It includes Wainwright's challenges to the forum selection clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole. The Judge, therefore, grants Melaleuca's motion to compel Wainwright's claims to adjudication. With nothing left to adjudicate, the Judge also grants Melaleuca's motion to dismiss. Judge Mendez orders the dismissal without prejudice to Wainwright re-filing in the proper forum should the arbitrator find her claims are not arbitrable. Finally, the Court's Order re Filing Requirements limits memoranda in support of and opposition to motions to compel to 15 pages. A violation of the Order requires the offending counsel (not the client) to pay $50 per page over the page limit to the Clerk of Court. The Court does not consider arguments made past the page limit. Wainwright's opposition brief exceeded the page limit by two pages. Wainwright's counsel must therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern District of California for $100 no later than seven days from the date of the Order. For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted Melaleuca's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice to re-filing in the proper forum should the arbitrator find Wainwright's claims are not arbitrable. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/8jX0rb from Leagle.com. Joann Wainwright, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon, Sang D. Song, Justice Law Corporation & Stephanie E. Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- Law Offices of Kenneth Yoon. Melaleuca, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Leigh Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Nathaniel R. Scharn, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen Christopher Whittaker -- cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Brian Michael Lutz -- blutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. MGP INGREDIENTS: April 28 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 28, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against MGP Ingredients, Inc. (NasdaqGS: MGPI), if they purchased the Company's shares between February 27, 2019 and February 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. What You May Do If you purchased shares of MGP and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mgpi/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 28, 2020. About the Lawsuit MGP and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 26, 2020, the Company announced its finalized full-year 2019 financial results, confirming its previously announced preliminary results, including that it had fallen "significantly short of . . . guidance" based its inability to sell aged whiskey during the 4Q2019 as well as a decline in year over year sales, and that it had failed to secure the contracts it had previously emphasized to investors. On this news, the price of MGP's shares plummeted. The case is Corbezzolo v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., et al., 20-cv-02090. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] MISSISSIPPI: Rappers File 2nd Class Action v. Corrections Dep't --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Napoleon, writing for Jurist, reports that rappers Jay Z and Yo Gotti filed a second lawsuit on Feb. 25 against the Mississippi Department of Corrections, targeting Parchaman Prison, where at least nine inmates have died since the beginning of the year. The class action suit, which the rappers filed on behalf of 152 inmates at the prison, alleges violation of inmates' Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The complaint also states that the prison's deficient staffing, living conditions, contaminated food, lack of adequate health care and exhaustion of administrative remedies contributes to the alarming number of deaths that have occurred and continue to occur at the prison. Parchman has been understaffed and underfunded for decades. As a result prisoners endure abhorrent conditions, abuse and constant violence, inadequate health care and mental care, and overuse of isolation. The conditions of confinement at Parchman are so barbaric, the deprivation of health and mental health care so extreme, and the defects in security so severe, that the people confined at Parchman live a miserable and hopeless existence confronted daily by imminent risk of substantial harm in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Team Roc, the philanthropic sector of Jay Z's entertainment company, has called for the Mississippi Department of Corrections to address the health and safety risks within 90 days. [GN] MOL: Faces Class Action Over Car Shipping Cartel ------------------------------------------------ Jack Richardson, writing for City A.M., reports that five shipping companies who ran a cartel for importing cars to the UK will face a class action lawsuit. MOL, "K" Line, NYK, WWL/EUKOR and CSAV are being sued for overcharging UK consumers and businesses. The European Commission ruled in 2018 they had breached competition rules by coordinating rates and capacity. Brussels imposed a EUR395 million (GBP336 million) fine and its investigation was one of many from around the world. Bringing the case through the Competition Appeals Tribunal means all affected motorists and businesses in the UK are included in the claim automatically. Consumers must have purchased or leased their vehicle between October 2006 and September 2015 in order to take part in the action. "When UK consumers and businesses purchased or leased a new car, they paid more for the delivery of that car than they should have done, as a results of a long-running cartel by five of the world's leading maritime shipping companies," said the class action's representative Mark McClaren. McClaren worked at consumer rights publisher Which for nine years and is supported by an advisory committee. The cartel affected several well known passenger cars and light commercial vehicles from several well-known car brands. Specialist law firm Scott and Scott will act on the case. "We are pleased to have this opportunity to act on behalf of UK consumers -- both individuals and businesses -- to help them recoup the losses they have suffered as a result of this long running cartel," David Scott, of Scott & Scott, said. The claims have been filed to the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal under the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Affected car brands include Ford, Volkswagan, Peugeot and Toyota. [GN] MORRISON & FOERSTER: Two Ex-Lawyers Withdraw Mommy Track Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- David Thomas, writing for Law.com, reports that Morrison & Foerster is seizing on the withdrawal of $100 million in proposed class action claims by two ex-lawyers who alleged the firm discriminates against pregnant women and new mothers, casting the move as a kind of vindication. But the case isn't over, and the Sanford Heisler Sharp attorneys representing plaintiffs Sherry William and Joshua Ashley Klayman outright rejected MoFo chairman Larren Nashelsky's assertion that stripping class claims from the case "validates what we've said here since the beginning." "Dropping all of the class action and collective action claims, it's a clear indication that there's no supporting fact pattern of any of the systemic issues of gender discrimination that they've alleged," Nashelsky told ALM. Andrew Melzer, a New York partner at Sanford Heisler, countered in a statement that the plaintiffs' position on the facts haven't changed, and "our clients are currently focusing on pursuing their individual claims based on strategic considerations." "Plaintiffs continue to pursue allegations that MoFo engages in systematic gender and pregnancy discrimination and seek to address MoFo's broader practices," Melzer said. Nashelsky and Melzer's comments come days after a fresh round of filings in the Northern District of California litigation. On Feb. 14, William and Klayman sought to file their fourth amended complaint in the legal battle that started in April 2018, this time eschewing class and collective claims. MoFo filed its answer to the new complaint on Feb. 16. As of Feb. 18, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley had not formally accepted the plaintiffs' request for leave to file their fourth amended complaint. William and Klayman's filing reiterates their allegations that Morrison & Foerster systematically discriminates against mothers and pregnant women, including by holding back advancement opportunities from female associates who have taken maternity leave. "They now face a Hobson's choice: pay a motherhood penalty in the form of slower rates of progression and correspondingly lesser compensation, thus accepting lower pay for substantially equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility to that of their male colleagues; or, in the alternative, follow MoFo's mommy track out the door in hopes of rescuing their careers," William and Klayman said in their lawsuit. William also alleged that Morrison & Foerster fired her in retaliation less than a week after she revealed herself as one of the plaintiffs. The firm in its answer said she was fired because of "sustained performance failures and low productivity" during an annual review. But William also alleged the annual review was "hastily scheduled" and she had no prior complaints about her productivity. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Nashelsky and Morrison & Foerster, meanwhile, reiterated their stance that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit. The firm in its reply said the evidence shows William and Klayman were not discriminated against, but that they "failed to meet the firm's performance expectations." It pointed to another female lawyer who worked in the same finance and projects group in Los Angeles as William and made partner while she was on her second maternity leave. "Sub-par performance, not discrimination, is the reason Ms. William ultimately was terminated by Morrison," the firm said. Klayman, meanwhile, rejected multiple mentorship opportunities her former colleagues offered her, Morrison & Foerster claimed. William and Klayman were, at one point, joined by five other women who also claimed to be victims of Morrison & Foerster's "mommy track." But those women settled their claims with the law firm, according to a Nov. 27 filing from Morrison & Foerster's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the plaintiffs' lawyers at Sanford Heisler. Nashelsky declined to comment on the firm's settlements with those five other plaintiffs. However, he did say the firm was willing to settle the case with William and Klayman if "it made sense for the firm." William and Klayman publicly revealed their identities two months ago. William was a senior associate in Morrison & Foerster's Los Angeles office while Klayman is the head of Linklaters' fintech and blockchain and digital assets. [GN] NAVIENT CORPORATION: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dewitt" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled as, GLYNIS DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02509-HLT-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter denied Glynis DeWitt's motion to certify three nationwide classes, each with a duplicate Kansas-based subclass, for student loan borrowers who have suffered damages as a result of Defendants' improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices. The three proposed classes are: -- the Misallocated Payments Class; -- the Improper Verification Class; and -- the Loan Rehabilitation Class. The Court said, "With over 5,000 complaints logged on the database, there are no doubt some common issues. But the Court will not sift through the hyperlinks to find them. The Court determines that Plaintiff has failed to fulfill her burden of proving that questions of law or fact common to all proposed class members will predominate over questions affecting its individual members. Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, entities involved in processing and collecting federal student loans, engaged in misconduct in connection with her loans. Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware, whose operations include servicing and collecting student loans.[CC] NEW JERSEY: E-Pazz Class Action for Review in New Brunswick ----------------------------------------------------------- David Matthau, writing for New Jersey101.5, reports that the court case challenging the legality of the $50 fine imposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for E-ZPass violations that sometimes amount to less than a dollar, has not been resolved yet but things could soon move forward. Matthew Faranda-Diedrich, a partner at Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld, the Philadelphia law firm heading up the federal class-action lawsuit, said because a state regulation is being challenged a state court has to first determine whether the rule is illegal or unconstitutional. The appellate division of state Superior Court has referred the case to a judge sitting in New Brunswick for review. That judge is still gathering information pertaining to whether the $50 fee is illegal. "That's a pretty significant moment because a lot of times the courts will defer to the governmental agencies," Faranda-Diedrich said. "Here, the appellate division did not and they appointed a trial court judge in Middlesex County to actually gather those facts and build that record." "Once we're hopefully successful in the state court matter, we'll then have the ability to really kick-start the class action and make it move forward," he added. "We're getting close to the finish line here and hopefully we'll be in a position to have a final hearing sometime this spring." Faranda-Diedrich said he's already reviewed hundreds of cases involving Garden State residents who have been "victimized" by the E-ZPass violation fine but they are still gathering more names to add to the class action suit. He noted other states like New York have put in place a toll-payer advocate but in New Jersey "there is no such advocate for the Turnpike and the Parkway, and so really we've taken up that mantle." The federal class action lawsuit that's been put on hold claims that the $50 fine violates the 8th Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines. The Turnpike Authority doubled the fine to $50 nine years ago, insisting the increase was necessary to keep up with rising violation processing costs. The lawsuit says that if the cost of the Turnpike Authority's violation-processing contract was divided by the number of violations they collected in a year, the amount of the fine should be just $18.37. And if the cost were to be divided by all 10 million annual violations, including those who never pay, the fine would be $3.41. Faranda-Diedrich said to inquire about being added to the federal class action suit, you may call 215-839-1000 or email intake specialist Randi Fair at rfair@rccblaw.com Faranda-Diedrich said that if the court rules the violation money must be refunded, drivers who are not part of the federal or state lawsuits would not have to do anything to get a refund. "Hopefully, all of these individuals will have their day in court," he said. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Settles Youth Shelter Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Eileen Grench, writing for The City, reports that homeless 16- and 17-year-olds would get beds on demand at age-appropriate city shelters under a legal settlement being considered by a federal judge. The agreement recently reached by the city and the Legal Aid Society in C.W. v The City of New York stands to cap a six-year-old class-action lawsuit aimed at getting young people the same right to shelter as adults. The settlement, covering runaway and homeless people ages 16 to 20, also requires the city to provide mental health services and a process to appeal ejection from youth shelters. Jamie Powlovich, of the Coalition for Homeless Youth, praised the proposed deal for "giving young people a voice and a way to advocate for themselves when they feel like they're being asked to leave somewhere they found stability." Still, she emphasized that while 16- and 17-year-olds would be guaranteed beds in specialized youth shelters, people 18 to 20 would have no such assurance -- and even could be discharged as younger runaways claim beds. Beth Hofmeister, of the Legal Aid Society's Homeless Rights Project and a lead attorney on the case, said the legal agreement would "establish system-changing relief." "This settlement will ensure that homeless youth in circumstances similar to those of our clients will not have to jump the same hurdles when simply seeking the vital shelter and supportive services they want and need," she said. Waiting for Wait Lists When the lawsuit was filed in late 2013, city youth shelters had just 253 beds -- not enough to meet demand after recession-driven funding cuts. Young people denied a spot in a specialized youth shelter had to fend for themselves in often chaotic adult shelters or on the streets. Lawyers from the Legal Aid Society and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP filed suit against the city in the final days of Mayor Mike Bloomberg's last term, asking for a right to shelter on behalf of 11 anonymous plaintiffs. Some had left abusive homes or struggled with mental health issues. Others faced sex trafficking. But they were linked, they said, in being failed by the city. Wait lists for youth beds had grown "so long that homeless youth must wait days just to add their names," the lawsuit alleged. Many struggled to find shelter for long enough to stabilize their lives, or obtain needed services. The year the lawsuit was filed, Alexander Rey Perez was sleeping outside in his home state of Florida. He eventually came to New York in search of family, stability and a "safe haven." Perez, who is transgender, landed a spot in a shelter run by the Ali Forney Center, which helps homeless LGBTQ youth. He stayed six months. "We just had homes that didn't want who we were," said Perez, a spoken-word poet and a counselor to homeless youth. "It's just sort of like, I can't stay here anymore. Right? Like, I would just live a very horrible life if I stayed here." Many More Beds Even before reaching the settlement, Mayor Bill de Blasio had made big commitments to expand shelters sponsored by the city Department of Youth and Community Development. Capacity is now up to 753 beds, according to Legal Aid. About 3,000 young people a year spend some time at a DYCD shelter, according to the Mayor's Management Report. Both the state and city have taken measures in the last three years to open youth shelters to people as old as 24. But in 2018, Brooklyn Federal Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. agreed with the contention of de Blasio's Law Department that a state law requiring shelters for young runaways does not apply to those 18 and older. As a result, the settlement only includes a right to youth shelter for 16- and 17-year-olds, who must be given priority for beds under the agreement. Asked about the push to exclude 18- to 20-year-olds, city Law Department officials said they are committed to providing services to homeless and runaway youth. "We are pleased we were able to resolve this case in the best interests of all parties," said the emailed statement to THE CITY. Perez has experienced losing a bed to younger peers, leading him to search for shelter elsewhere. Still, he sees other rights gained as beneficial to everyone living in youth shelters — especially the ability to protest removal for violating rules. Adult Shelter Concerns He says conflicts between stressed youth and staff can quickly escalate, leading to ejection in some cases. "Time flies very, very fast when you're going through this situation," said Perez. "And now I'm here and you're kicking me out and maybe this is the only place I've ever had to be." Turning to the adult system, Perez says, can be traumatizing for youth, especially those who identify as LGBTQ. The only time Perez attempted to access an adult shelter -- the sole way to obtain a housing voucher -- he hadn't been able to officially change his documents to reflect his gender expression. Workers kept calling him by the wrong pronouns, he said. (The Department of Homeless Services has since committed to use the pronouns of a person's choice.) When he was asked to go through a "body scan machine" and be patted down by a woman, he walked out. At the Ali Forney Center, he felt surrounded by supportive peers. "They don't see you as a lost cause yet," said Perez. "They don't they don't see you as someone who's too far gone to hell." [GN] NISSAN: Settles Class Action Over Engine Defect ----------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Nissan has reached a settlement in a proposed class action alleging it concealed a dangerous engine defect, with the automaker agreeing to extend hundreds of thousands of car owners' warranties and cover the cost of previous repairs. [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Gov. Wolf Faces Class Suit by Schulmerich Bells ------------------------------------------------------------- SCHULMERICH BELLS, LLC, A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company, and FRANK CARBALO, WENDY HELVERSON, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. THOMAS W. WOLF, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and RACHEL LEVINE, MD, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Case No. 2:20-cv-01637 (E.D. Pa., March 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' rights and privileges under the United States Constitution. The Governor and the Secretary have seized without compensation the property of businesses and the livelihoods of individuals across the Commonwealth, forcing indefinite closures and widespread layoffs, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that these uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and also violate well-established notions of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court (i) declare the Governor's actions unconstitutional, and (ii) order the payment of just compensation. The Plaintiffs are individuals and businesses from across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Governor Thomas W. Wolf, named in his official capacity, is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan S. Goldstein, Esq. Shawn M. Rodgers, Esq. GOLDSTEIN LAW PARTNERS, LLC 11 Church Road Hatfield, PA 19440 Phone: 610.949.0444 Fax: 610.296.7730 Email: jgoldstein@goldsteinlp.com srodgers@goldsteinlp.com PPG INDUSTRIES: Castro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled ROGELIO CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, a California corporation; SIERRACIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04118 (Filed Jan. 31, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02110 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages. PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. Sierracin/Sylmar Corporation manufactures aircraft parts.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carlos Jimenez, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 443 4300 Facsimile: 213 443 4299 E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Paris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL PARIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of HENRY PARIS, JR., deceased, CHRISTIE HEGEL, and ROLANDO HERNANDEZ v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21761-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying classes: Progressive American Class: "all insureds, under any Florida policy issued by Progressive American covering a vehicle with private- passenger auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision loss, who made a first-party claim determined to be a total loss, and whose total-loss payment did not include payment for Transfer Fees and/or included a payment (if any) for Sales Tax of less than 6% of the adjusted vehicle value, within the five year time period prior to the date on which this lawsuit was filed until the date of any certification order"; and Progressive Select Class: "all insureds, under any Florida policy issued by Progressive Select covering a vehicle with private- passenger auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision loss, who made a first-party claim determined to be a total loss, and whose total-loss payment did not include payment for Transfer Fees and/or where the Sales Tax amount (if any) was less than 6% of the adjusted vehicle value (plus any applicable surtax), within the five year time period prior to the date on which this lawsuit was filed until the date of any certification order"; 2. appointing Paris and Hernandez as representatives of the Progressive American class, and appointing Hegel as representative of the Progressive Select Class; 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and 4. directing the Parties to submit a proposed Notice Plan complying with Rule 23(c), or, if the Parties are unable to agree, for Plaintiffs to submit a Notice Plan to which Defendants may file objections. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants systematically underpaid Plaintiffs and thousands of other putative Class Members amounts Defendants owed for Sales Tax and/or Transfer Fees. The Defendants provide private-passenger property damage auto coverage to insureds in Florida.[CC] The Plaintiffs are reprsented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Post Office Box 1400036 Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Telephone: 407 603.6031 E-mail: service@ednormand.com ed@ednormand.com jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com - and - Joshua R. Levine, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com levine@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Christopher J. Lynch, Esq. CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A. 6915 Red Road, Suite 208 Coral Gables, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 443-6200 Facsimile: (305) 443-6204 E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com Lmartinez@hunterlynchlaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E 1st Ave Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. David M. Sholl, Esq. Edelsberg Law, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com david@edelsberglaw.com QFS TRANSPORTATION: Jailani Class Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as AWEIS JAILANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QFS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 15C01-2002-PL-13, was removed from the Indiana Circuit Court, Dearborn County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (New Albany) on March 4, 2020. The Southern District of Indiana Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00055-TWP-DML to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. The lawsuit involves issues relating to commerce commission rates. QFS is a motor carrier located in Greendale, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Medlin Lowe, Esq. RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-5270 Facsimile: (317) 426-3348 E-mail: alowe@rwp-law.com - and - Eric K. Habig, Esq. BECK ROCKER & HABIG, P.C. 320 Franklin St. Columbus, IN 47201 Telephone: (812) 372-8858 Facsimile: (812) 378-4732 E-mail: ehabig@beckrocker.com - and - William N. Riley, Esq. RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-5270 Facsimile: (317) 426-3348 E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com - and - Darren Andrew Craig, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961 Telephone: (317) 237-3800 Facsimile: (317) 237-3900 E-mail: dcraig@fbtlaw.com RED ROBIN INT'L: Mina TCPA Suit Moved from California to Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MARK MINA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and cRED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-09472 (Filed Nov. 7, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver) on March 4, 2020. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00612-RM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that Red Robin has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through its unauthorized contact of consumers on their respective cellular telephones. He adds that Red Robin has violated the TCPA by sending consumers unsolicited text messages for marketing and advertising purposes, without prior express written consent, invading the consumers' right to privacy. Red Robin is a restaurant chain with over 500 restaurants throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com - and - Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com ryan@jlglawyers.com RIPPLE: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Cyrpto Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Robert Stevens, writing for Decrypt, reports that allegations of scams, lies, and hacks clogged up the newswire: a Californian judge refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit that could crash the crypto market; a crypto deal to buy a soccer club went sour; and actor Steven Seagal had to return over $300,000 for shilling the wrong platform. Crypto, never stop being crypto! Ripple's disgruntled investors Imagine you've created the third largest cryptocurrency on the market. Imagine you work for Ripple Labs. Imagine your name is Brad Garlinghouse. Imagine you are Brad Garlinghouse, facing up to a terrifying possibility: that a lawsuit against your company threatens to crash the whole cryptocurrency market, with your name going down in history as the aggressor, and the dregs of Twitter's crypto scene the victors. Ripple asked U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who presides over Oakland, California, to dismiss a case in which unhappy investors claim that Ripple tricked them out of their money, and ran an unregistered securities sale for its token, XRP. Ripple's counsel asked Judge Hamilton to throw out the case on the basis that the token sale for XRP was over five years ago, and so it was no longer relevant. Besides, it'd crash the market, it said. On Feb. 26, Judge Hamilton refused to dismiss the case. And though she invited the plaintiffs to amend their claims that Ripple misled them, the rest of her arguments appeared to assume that XRP was, indeed, a security, according to the Howey test—the decades-old measuring spoon to determine whether or not an asset is a security. That's what Jason Gottlieb, a partner of Morrison Cohen LLP who's experienced in crypto litigation, told Decrypt. Judge Hamilton referred to a statute of limitations issue under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, "which would only apply if XRP were a security," Gottlieb said. Judge Hamilton also evaluated whether Ripple was a "seller" under securities laws, as well as liability issues under federal securities laws. "You wouldn't be looking at those unless you had determined, for the purposes of this motion, that XRP is a security," Gottlieb told Decrypt. And if the court determines that XRP is a security (which previous courts have kinda assumed is the case, at least at this stage in various lawsuits), that means that XRP is an unregistered security. This would spell doom (d, o, o, m) and gloom (g, l, o, o, m) for XRP. They'd have to give investors their money back, and potentially cease trading of the coin altogether. Snap out of it, Brad! Zen Master Loses his Calm Actor, martial artist and one-time crypto publicist Steven Seagal found himself on deadly ground, as the SEC fined him over $300,000. Discovering that he wasn't above the law, Seagal incurred the fine due to his role as the brand ambassador of Bitcoiin2Gen, an abandoned utility coin that's being chased up for running an unregistered securities sale (there's a theme here!). Seagal agreed to be named on press releases as such and also hyped up the coin on his social media. For his foolishness, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has demanded he cough up $157,000 in disgorgement (the amount he received from Bitcoiin2Gen) and a $157,000 fine to the SEC. He's also not allowed to push any other unregistered securities for the time being. That suggests that Seagal got far less than he was originally promised for the project: Bitcoiin2Gen promised him $250,000 in cash and $750,000 worth of its token, B2G. But the token's now marked for death, with the price sitting at $0.00017770, and trades around $50 a day. If Seagal had HODLed all his tokens, and the tokens he held were still worth a total of $750,000, it'd take him 41 years to get his money back, all else being equal. Of course, arguments of ceteris paribus fly out the window with crypto; Seagal's money is forever out of reach, so he got screwed at both ends. But even worse is the press release that Bitcoiin2Gen paid that kingly sum for. Read this: "As a Buddhist, Zen teacher, and healer, Steven lives by the principles that the development of the physical self is essential to protect the spiritual man. He believes that what he does in his life is about leading people into contemplation to wake them up and enlighten them in some manner." "These are precisely the objectives of the Bitcoiin2Gen to empower the community by providing a decentralized P2P payment system with its own wallet, mining ecosystem and robust blockchain platform without the need of any third party." [SIC]. Even delivered with maximum conviction, it's utter drivel. Crypto hasn't bought a soccer team, after all Jim Aylward, CEO of London Football Exchange, no longer returns my calls or my messages. Just a few weeks ago, he proudly told me that he'd just bought an 80% stake in a soccer club, Australian team Perth Glory. For Aylward, a football fan, this was a dream come true - or would be, subject to due diligence and a few signatures, which he assured me were mere formalities. But the deal's since fallen through, and Aylward, who raised over $40 million for his crypto platform, has been sued in the UK High Court by Murat Seitnepsov, an oil trader from Turkmenistan - who claims that Aylward and other LFE representatives didn't repay a $2.2 million loan. And a video taken by Aylward, dredged up by Australian radio station 6PR, showed Aylward beaming that the value of the token was safe, since he owned most of them anyway, and was "totally manipulating the price." Even worse, 6PR also claims it was shown documents that suggest Jim Aylward was using a fake identity; he was, in fact, James Abbass Biniaz, a man convicted to 22 months in prison in 2010 for fraud. Alas, crypto remains crypto for yet another week. Onward, lads! [GN] RONAK FOODS: Martin Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- COREY MARTIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. RONAK FOODS LLC D/B/A PIZZA HUT, JIGNESH PANDYA, and KRUPA PATEL, individually, Case 5:20-cv-01261-JMY (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to delivery drivers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2013 to 2017 as a delivery driver at their Pizza Hut stores located in Feasterville, Pennsylvania. The Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Telephone: (215) 496 8282 Facsimile: (215) 754 4443 E-mail: ckacher@smbb.com - and - Matthew Haynie, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com joeyl@bsjfirm.com RUTTER'S INC: Faces Collins Suit in M.D. Pa. Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- LLOYD F. COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUTTER'S INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00382-JEJ (M.D. Pa., March 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of consumers, whose credit and debit card information was accessed by unauthorized users as part of a large cyber-attack of Rutter's Payment Card environment and systems. Mr. Collins used his Chase credit card to make purchases at Rutter's Shippensburg store on September 2, 15, and 20, October 1 and 5, and December 12, 2018 (during the Breach Period). Rutter's reported that between at least August 30, 2018, and May 29, 2019, hackers gained access to its stores' network system and planted malware on its point-of-sale devices in its stores and at its gas pumps, which collected customers' Payment Card information. As a result of the Data Breach, many Rutter's customers, including the Plaintiff, have experienced and will continue to experience fraudulent purchases and other misuse related to their accounts, according to the complaint. These Class Members will also incur out-of-pocket costs to purchase protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit freezes, and credit reports. They will also incur costs associated with obtaining replacement cards and other items directly and indirectly related to the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Card Information was stolen in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies, including reimbursement of fraud losses and other out-of-pocket costs, compensation for time spent in response to the Data Breach, credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief requiring substantial improvements to Rutter's card payment data security systems. Rutter's is a chain of convenience stores and gas stations with 72 locations in Central Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com mbd@chimicles.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: 918 588 3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS: Anguiano Files FDCPA Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Freddy Anguiano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00434-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal., March 25, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is one of the most technologically and digitally advanced Accounts Receivable Management Company with over 17 years of experience in the ARM Space. Sequium brings innovation in the Debt collection industry utilizing specialized and advanced collection tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq. Wajda Law Group, APC 6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (310) 997-0471 Fax: (866) 286-8433 Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com SEQWATER: Appeals Ruling in 2011 Brisbane Flood Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Business News Australia reports that the potential for millions of dollars in compensation is now in limbo for almost 7,000 victims from the 2011 Brisbane flood, after dam operators filed an appeal over a court decision finding them partly responsible for water damage. State-owned enterprises Seqwater and Sunwater have lodged appeals against the NSW Supreme Court's decision in November that they were liable, together with the State of Queensland, in negligence to members of a class action. Sunwater made the announcement of its appeal on Feb. 28, following Seqwater's appeal lodged on Feb. 21, prompting calls from law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Queensland Government to intervene. "Today is an incredibly hard day for the thousands of flood victims in our class action, who now face a very long road to compensation as a result of both state owned entities Sunwater and Seqwater confirming they will appeal the floods class action judgment," said Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan. "The announcement by Sunwater confirms that unless a solution is found soon our clients face many long months, if not years, of having to wait for the compensation they deserve. "The only path to a resolution in the near term is for the State Government to step in." The law firm's flood victim clients have "had enough" after nine years of waiting, according to Gilsenan. "The people who lost so much unnecessarily in the floods of 2011 do not understand the differences between the State Government and its entities or about fights between the State and insurers," she said. "To them, it all just sounds like delay to their ability to move forward." International litigation company IMF Bentham (ASX: IMF) will fund the defence of the appeals on behalf of the class action claimants, and has estimated potential income from the case at $120-150 million of which it would receive $25 million. "This estimate is based on conservative assumptions, including as to possible resolution outcomes which may ultimately be exceeded," IMF said. "The timing of such recognition is uncertain and will be subject to applicable accounting standards. IMF notes that it is not possible at this stage to provide a precise estimate of future income due to the need for a detailed damages assessment to be conducted for all group members." The Supreme Court of NSW is due to hear the question of apportionment of liability between the defendants starting on 29 April 2020. [GN] SPANCRETE INC: Dokey Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as DANIEL DOKEY on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SPANCRETE, INC., Case No. 19-cv-921 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who are or have been employed by Defendant at its Valders, Wisconsin facility within the two years immediately prior to the filing of the Complaint and who received non-discretionary forms of compensation in addition to regular wages that were not included in their regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes." The Defendant compensated approximately 154 hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at its Valders, Wisconsin facility, including Plaintiff, with non-discretionary bonuses pursuant to its "Op-Ex Employee Excellence Program Bonus" on a quarterly basis. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to included these non-discretionary bonuses in its Employees', including Dokey's, regular rates of pay when determining overtime compensation due to them during workweeks in which they worked more than 40 hours during the representative three-month time period to which the non-discretionary bonuses applied, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 103.025(1)(c) and Wis. Admin Code section DWD 274.03.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Matthew J. Tobin, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com STATE STREET: Judge Orders Law Firms to Repay Inflated Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Estes, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a federal judge has ordered Boston-based Thornton Law Firm and a New York firm to give back nearly $15 million they collected by dramatically inflating their bills. Judge Mark L. Wolf concluded that Thornton, along with the Labaton Sucharow law firm of New York, double-billed for some attorneys working on a class-action lawsuit involving State Street Bank, and billed for others that didn't even work for them, boosting their overall legal charges by millions. In addition, Wolf found that Thornton's managing partner, Garrett Bradley, improperly listed his brother as an attorney on the case, running up a bill of more than $200,000 even though Michael Bradley played a limited role. Wolf credited the Globe Spotlight Team for uncovering the scheme. [GN] STRANGE HONEY: Consumers Intend to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Moore Tribune, writing for Citizen Tribune, reports that two Knoxville-based honey consumers -- without explanation -- on Feb. 15 indicated they plan to dismiss a would-be federal class-action lawsuit filed against Strange Honey Farm and its owners, Gary Strange and Fonda Strange. By press time, U.S. District Judge Pamela L. Reeves had not filed an order dismissing the case, but it appears certain the civil lawsuit will go away. Knoxville residents Robert Greer and James Reimer alleged lab tests showed that honey marketed by Strange Honey Farm was harvested in Vietnam, yet the company advertised its honey comes from Tennessee. They also alleged the honey contained syrup, and it was heated to the point where it could not be truthfully sold as "raw" honey. Knoxville attorney Gordon Ball, who represents the business, argued the Knoxville men did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to sue. Ball asserted that Greer and Reimer never asserted they bought Strange honey, thereby failing to prove they had suffered any injury. The attorney also argued that the proposed class-action lawsuit was further fatally flawed. "(The) complaint furnishes no percentage of how many class members are Tennesseans, as opposed to out-of-state citizens . . . The complaint alleges that 'some' members of the class are from states other than Tennessee," a motion to dismiss states. "There is no statement of how many of what percentage 'some' is." [GN] STYROFOAM MOULDING: Feliciano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Pena Feliciano, and other similarly-situated individuals v. STYROFOAM MOULDING COMPANY, and ANTONIO CASCO, individually, Case No. 8:20-cv-00718 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2020), seeks to recover damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, during the weeks in which the Plaintiff worked 6 days per week with 75 working hours, the Plaintiff regular hourly wage rate dropped below the established minimum wage rate as per requirements of the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after April 2017, without being properly compensated. The Plaintiff, who hired by the Defendant as a construction worker, alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40. Styrofoam Molding is a construction company providing interior and exterior styrofoam custom molding to the construction industry in the Tampa Bay area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TAWH INC: Caceres Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Caceres, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tawh, Inc., William Goldkranz and Jerry Goldkranz,, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02082, (S.D. N.Y. February 24, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed costs and maintenance for "tools of the trade," unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as Total Automotive Warehouse in Yonkers where Caceres worked as a driver until December 7, 2019. Caceres claims to have generally worked 6 days a week for 10.5 hours per day without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and spread of hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 TRANSUNION LLC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Manley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS MANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00151-JAG (E.D. Va., March 3, 2020), is brought for damages arising from TransUnion's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint says that TransUnion reported a debt that was incurred after the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy despite the debt never being included in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy schedules. The Plaintiff avers that TransUnion's own records, had it chosen to consult them, would have quickly revealed the inaccuracy in its reporting. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a national class of consumers for whom TransUnion reported a debt as discharged in bankruptcy when records to which TransUnion had easy access showed otherwise. TransUnion, LLC, is consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: len@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com - and - Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND, LLC 800 Battery Ave., Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (404) 800-1482 TRI CITY FOODS: Sciortino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Sciortino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRI CITY FOODS, INC. and TRI CITY FOODS OF ILLINOIS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01980 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory monthly damages penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants have violated the wage laws by engaging in illegal policies and practices of altering and shaving time off hourly restaurant workers' time records, thereby, failing to compensate them for all hours worked, says the complaint. As a result of the Defendants' illegal pay policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other hourly restaurant workers were deprived of the hard-earned wages including overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty per week. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to work as an hourly-paid cashier/crew member/guest representative. Tri City Foods operates restaurants "in eight Midwestern states" and has is "the second largest Burger King franchisee with annual revenues exceeding $420 million."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Thompson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TREVA THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN H. MERRILL, etc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-783-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on Sept. 26, 2016, and a supplemental, amended complaint on March 1, 2018. After rulings on motions to dismiss, the case is proceeding on several claims, and the Plaintiffs have sought class certification as to some of those claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs Darius Gamble, Thompson, Timothy Lanier, and Pamela King seek to represent a class pursuant to counts 1, 2, and 12 of the complaint as follows: All persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right to vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of conviction for a felony involving moral turpitude as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1. Named Plaintiffs Gamble, Thompson, Lanier, and King also seek to represent a subclass relevant to the Ex Post Facto claim in count 11 and the Due Process claims in counts 16 and 17 as follows: All persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who were convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1 before Aug. 1, 2017 but are unable to register to vote pursuant to Defendant Merrill's retroactive implementation of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30-1 to individuals with prior convictions. Named Plaintiffs Gamble and Thompson seek to represent a Legal Financial Obligation ("LFO") subclass to pursue the claim in count 13 as follows: All persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who (1) are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right to vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of a conviction for a felony involving moral turpitude as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1; and (2) are unable to pay their fines, fees, and/or restitution due to their socioeconomic status; but (3) are otherwise eligible to apply for a CERV. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the class and subclasses pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). The Defendants do not contest numerosity. They do contest commonality, but only as to count 12 and typicality, but only as to counts 11, 16, and 17. They also contest adequacy as to all counts. The Defendants' primary objections to certification, however, are based on ascertainability and necessity within the context of Rule 23(b)(2). As for ascertainability, the Defendants have argued that the proposed class and subclasses should not be certified because the members of the class and subclasses are not identifiable. The Plaintiffs respond that there is no ascertainability requirement when certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class is sought, and even if there were, the classes are ascertainable. Judge Marks finds that some courts have noted that DeBremaecker v. Short, required ascertainability for a Rule 23(b)(2) certification, and have felt constrained to follow, or distinguish, that precedent. It appears to him, however, that binding authority holds that ascertainability does not apply to a Rule (b)(2) class. In Carpenter v. Davis, a case cited by the Plaintiffs in the case, the Fifth Circuit explained that it is not necessary that members of the class be so clearly identified that any member can be presently ascertained under Rule 23(b)(2), relying on the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule, and citing to previous Fifth Circuit cases. In the Eleventh Circuit, if there is a conflict between two panel decisions, the earlier panel decision controls. Carpenter v. Davis, decided in April 1970, pre-dates DeBremaecker v. Short, decided in November 1970. Therefore, the Judge finds that there is no ascertainability requirement which poses a bar to certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class in the case. As for Rule 23(b) and necessity, the District Court holds that to the extent that it has facts before it which are pertinent to the factors considered in the evaluation of appropriateness, it concludes that those factors weigh in favor of a finding that injunctive and/or declaratory relief has not been shown by the Plaintiffs to be appropriate relief respecting the class as a whole under Rule 23(b)(2). For these reasons, the Court denied the Motion for Class Certification, and denied as moot the Motion for Status Conference. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/EvBjWd from Leagle.com. Treva Thompson, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Timothy Lanier, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Pamela King, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Greater Birmingham Ministries & Darius Gamble, Plaintiffs, represented by Aderson B. Francois, Institute for Public Representation, pro hac vice, Armand Derfner, Derfner & Altman LLC, pro hac vice, Danielle Lang, Campaign Legal Center, pro hac vice, James Uriah Blacksher, Attorney at Law, Jason P. Hipp -- jhipp@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer J. Yun -- jyun@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Ring Amunson -- jamunson@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center, pro hac vice, Joseph Mitchell McGuire, McGuire & Associates LLC, Mark Peter Gaber, Campaign Legal Center, pro hac vice, Michael E. Stewart, Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Molly Elizabeth Danahy, Campaign Legal Center & Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School, pro hac vice. John H. Merrill, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Cindy Sahlie, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Registrars and on behalf of a class of all voter registrars in the State of Alabama & Leigh Gwathney, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendants, represented by James William Davis, State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Office of the Attorney General, Brad A. Chynoweth, State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General & Winfield James Sinclair, Office of the Attorney General. Rep. David Faulkner, Movant, represented by Christopher William Weller -- Chris.Weller@chlaw.com -- Capell Howard PC. Cam Ward, Movant, represented by Marc James Ayers, Sr. -- mayers@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. UNIV. OF PITTSBURGH MED: Judge Won't Recuse Himself from Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Pennsylvania state judge said he doesn't have to recuse himself from a proposed class action against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center brought by his former client's law firm, saying a decades-old, unpaid legal bill doesn't bias him against the firm. [GN] VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Stays Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Delaware federal judge on Feb. 18 told Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. that he would stay the derivative suit the company faces before him while at the same time shooting down Vanda's bid to move the case to a New York court where two similar lawsuits are playing out concerning the company's drug marketing practices. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Settles $3 Billion in Criminal Fines, Civil Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Flynn, writing for The Gazette, reports that after many years of public floggings, class action lawsuits, executive firings and regulatory agency investigations, Wells Fargo has entered into yet another settlement arising out of the creation of bogus customer accounts. This time around, Wells Fargo will pay $3 billion in criminal fines and civil monetary penalties. The bogus accounts occurred because Wells Fargo established a business plan -- called "cross-selling" -- under which employees were rewarded for illegal and unethical behavior and punished if they declined to participate. Furthermore, senior executives knew what was happening, failed to act effectively to shut down the activity and deceived investors concerning problems with cross-selling. Employees were very creative in finding ways to meet unrealistic sales goals. Eventually, their strategies became known within the company as "gaming." The Wells Fargo settlement is unique in several ways, in particular because Wells Fargo wholly admitted the claims against it. Usually, when an agency goes after a bad actor, the case ends in a "consent agreement" whereby the bad actor pays a fine and promises to stop doing whatever it was that got it in trouble, but denies wrongdoing. However, as part of this settlement, Wells Fargo joined in a document called "statement of facts," which reads like a murder confession. Here are a few snippets from the statement of facts that Wells Fargo "admits, accepts and acknowledges as true." * "Employees were directed, pressured, and/or caused to sell large volumes of products to existing customers, often with little regard to actual customer need or expected use." * Managers exerted "extreme pressure on subordinates to achieve sales goals, including explicitly directing and/or implicitly encouraging employees to engage in various forms of unlawful and unethical conduct to meet increasing sales goals." * "Many employees believed that a failure to meet their sales goals would result in poor job evaluations, disciplinary action, and/or termination." * The cross-selling plan "led to fraud, identity theft and the falsification of bank records." The new Wells Fargo settlement is also unique in that it includes both civil claims (think money damages) and criminal claims (fines and jail time). On the criminal side, a key component of the settlement is a "deferred prosecution agreement" wherein the Department of Justice agrees not to prosecute Wells Fargo under various criminal statutes provided Wells Fargo, for a period of three years (and on a very short regulatory leash), adheres to a lengthy set of conditions set forth in the agreement. So who gets the $3 billion? As yet, I haven't found a good answer to that question. [GN] WESTCO CHEMICALS: Violates ERISA as Plan Fiduciary, Diaz Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merry Russitti Diaz and Kater Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger; and Steven Zwillinger, Case No. 2:20-cv-02070 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act as fiduciaries of the Westco Chemicals Defined Benefit Pension Plan. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants never intended for the Pension Plan to be a legitimate Pension Plan that provided meaningful retirement income to their employees, or to otherwise comply with existing laws and regulations that govern such plans. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants created and have since used the Pension Plan primarily to funnel the money in the Pension Plan to themselves and their relatives. In 2005, the Defendants received a large cash settlement award from a lawsuit involving anticompetitive business practices. The Defendants wanted to avoid paying the anticipated hefty tax bill on the cash settlement award, so they created the Pension Plan and used the cash settlement award to initially fund the Plan, the Plaintiffs says. The Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the Pension Plan. Westco is a business-to-business distributor of chemical ingredients such as food, nutritional, industrial, pharmaceutical, and personal care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP 316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 E-mail: shoham@solukisavoy.com WESTPAC BANKING: Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Janette McLennan, Esq., Edward Kirk, Esq., and Joel Harris, Esq., of Clyde & Co, in an article for Lexology, report that two recent developments in US class action law demonstrates the extraterritorial reach of US securities law and represents an emerging risk for Australian companies and their D&O insurers. A recent ruling by a US judge confirmed that an ongoing class action by holders of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in Japanese Company Toshiba was allowed to proceed under both US and Japanese Securities law. Two class actions have been filed by US-based plaintiff class action firms against Westpac Banking Corporation in the United States on behalf of holders of Westpac's American Depository Receipts (ADRs). Both actions relate to losses allegedly resulting from Westpac's AUSTRAC scandal. In this article, Clyde & Co partners Ned Kirk and Janette McLennan explain the basis for the Westpac class action and discuss the risks that this new class action trend may present for Australian companies. Extra-territoriality of Jurisdiction of the USA Australian investors had previously unsuccessfully tried to invoke the extraterritorial protection of US securities laws. In Morrison v National Bank of Australia, Australian investors had tried to sue NAB for losses sustained on shares traded on the Australian Stock Exchange. The US Supreme Court dismissed the claim, holding that the US Exchange Act only applied to: Transactions in securities listed on a US Exchange; and Domestic transactions in other securities. Despite the decision in Morrison, investors have continued to file US securities class actions against non-US companies, using a securities product, known as an ADR. In the past two years, the number of securities actions against non-US issuers has more than doubled the historical average. What is an ADR? An ADR is a negotiable certificate issued by a US depository bank and represents a specific number of shares in a company listed on a foreign stock exchange. ADRs are traded on US Stock Exchanges or are available on the over-the-counter market (the OTC). ADRs are an easy way for US investors to trade in foreign shares. There are two basic types of ADRs: -- Sponsored ADRs which are issued on behalf of an international company; and -- Unsponsored ADRs which are issued without the consent of the foreign company. Approximately 164 Australian companies have ADRs issued in the US available either on stock exchanges or the OTC. In the case of Westpac, its sponsored ADRs have been listed on the NYSE since October 1989, with The Bank of New York Mellon acting as the depositary bank. Each ADR represents one Westpac ordinary, fully paid share traded on the ASX. The Toshiba Litigation Toshiba's shares are traded on the Tokyo stock exchange. Its unsponsored ADRs are also traded in the US. In 2015, a class action was filed in a US District Court in California arising from an alleged accounting scandal around its Japanese operations. The case alleges breaches of both US and Japanese securities law. In 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the First Amended Complaint. The defendants appealed, and on 17 July 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the First Amended Complaint alleged neither a domestic transaction nor fraudulent conduct in connection with the sale of securities. The Ninth Circuit, however, allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead. The Supreme Court denied a petition to review the appeal in June 2019. On 8 August 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. In a recent ruling, Judge Pregerson denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. He first found that the plaintiffs' allegations supported their contention that the trades had taken place in the US and were a domestic transaction as required under Morrison. Specifically, the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they incurred irrevocable liability in the US, including that the location of the broker, tasks carried out by the broker, placement of the purchase order, passing of title, and payment for the ADRs all occurred in the US. The court noted, however, that if discovery reveals that the ADR transaction involved an initial purchase of Toshiba's common stock in a foreign transaction, as the defendants argued, this fact could be properly raised later in the case on a motion for summary judgment to show that the plaintiffs' purchase of the ADRs were not domestic transactions. Next, the District Court found that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged that the alleged fraudulent conduct was in connection with the purchase or sale or securities as required under the Exchange Act. Toshiba argued that the plaintiffs could not prove a causal link between Toshiba's alleged conduct and their decision to invest in the ADRs. As unsponsored ADRs, issued without its consent, Toshiba had not participated in the transaction. The Judge dismissed this argument, finding that the depository bank held 55 million of Toshiba shares, and was one of Toshiba's largest shareholders. The Judge determined that it was unlikely that the depository bank could have purchased such a large number of shares on the open market without Toshiba's consent, assistance or participation. Therefore, the District Court determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Toshiba's "plausible participation in the establishment of the ADR program." The ruling confirms that Australian companies, with unsponsored ADRs, are at risk of not only Australian class actions but also potential US class actions as well. The Westpac Class Actions The Westpac class action related to allegations by Australia's financial intelligence agency, AUSTRAC, that the bank breached Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism finance laws (AML/CTF) by failing to report AUD23million international funds transfer instructions (IFTIs) on behalf of correspondent banks and their customers. As a result, AUSTRAC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for a civil penalty proceeding. The penalty could be more than AUD1billion, when compared to the recent penalty action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia following 53,000 breaches of Australia's AML/CTF laws. In December 2019, a class action against Westpac was filed in the Federal Court of Australia by Phi Finney McDonald Lawyers. Woodsford Litigation Funding funds this class action. On 30 January 2020, the Rosen Law Firm, which is a US-based plaintiff class action firm, filed proceedings against Westpac Banking Corporation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of holders of Westpac's sponsored ADRs. On 3 February 2020, a second US class action was filed by another US-based plaintiff class action firm, Bernstein Liebhard. The allegations covering both the Australian and US class actions are the same and as the Australian class action is currently an open class, the US investors would also be potentially covered by the Australian proceeding. For the moment it means that Westpac will need to defend itself from actions by its investors in two jurisdictions. Analysis The Westpac claims demonstrate that Australian companies are now in the sights of US plaintiff class action firms. Under Morrison, they are are able to bring US securities class actions against companies with sponsored ADRs. In addition, Australian companies with unsponsored ADRs may have exposure to US securities class actions, at least in the Ninth Circuit pursuant to the recent rulings in Toshiba. A significant number of leading Australian companies have unsponsored ADRs traded on the OTC in the US; these include banks, financial services, insurers, mining, oil and gas, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Given the number of recently announced class actions against banks and financial services companies and the application of US securities laws to unsponsored ADRs, we may see more US-based class actions against Australian companies in the coming year. D&O underwriters should turn their minds to consider ADR class actions as an emerging risk for Australian based risks and consider how wordings should respond, with particular care to be exercised when considering DIC/DIL clauses and territorial limits. Also, during the underwriting of D&O policies, the underwriters should carefully consider potential exposure to sponsored or unsponsored ADRs, and request information regarding the insured's consent, participation or assistance with ADRs or other US securities transactions tied to its securities. For Australian based claims managers, risks can also arise due to differences in insurance law between the US and Australia. Issues can arise if an Australian master policy, with a DIC/DIL clause, provides excess cover to a local US policy. Other potential problems can occur as a result of some US states providing an insured with a right to a defence that is separate from the right to indemnity which may mean that an insurer may have to pay defence costs even if the claim does not explicitly cover the ultimate loss. When considering coverage for such claims, it may not be enough to rely on Australia law and principles and it may be necessary to obtain US law advice. Finally, class action defence in the US can be costly, and claims managers and in-house counsel need to manage costs carefully. We would recommend appointing monitoring counsel to ensure that proceedings are appropriately resourced and managed. [GN] [*] Courts Okay $25.6MM Settlement in Price Fixing Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Cillian O'Brien, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that three provincial courts have approved $25.6 million in settlement funds for motorists affected by alleged price-fixing in the automotive industry. Courts in B.C., Ontario and Quebec have given the green light to distribute payments to Canadians who bought cars that were involved in an investigation into wire harness systems, which distribute electricity around a vehicle. "There have been extensive criminal investigations around the globe," reads a press release on behalf of Siskinds, Sotos and CFM law firms. "The auto parts cases make up the largest antitrust investigation in history -- in terms of the number of affected parts, implicated parties and fines imposed." The law firms behind the class action lawsuit said consumers and businesses who bought or leased new vehicles under the Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti, Toyota/Lexus, Subaru and/or Pontiac Vibes brands, between January 1, 1999 and November 30, 2014 are eligible to apply to receive compensation. The defendants in the case do not admit any wrongdoing or liability and the law firms emphasized that the car manufacturers were unaware of the alleged price-fixing. "This plan represents an opportunity for consumers and businesses to recover overpayments on millions of vehicles sold in Canada," said Charles Wright, a partner at Siskinds in London, Ont. Applications for settlement benefits can be filed online at autopartsettlement.ca on or before June 12, 2020. Payments will be proportional, based on the "value of your claim relative to the value of all approved claims," according to the settlement site. "It is anticipated that all claims will receive a minimum payment of $25," the website reads. The automotive wire harness systems class action is one of more than 40 ongoing class actions in Canada alleging price-fixing of auto parts for installation in new vehicles. "It is our hope that through continued work with our colleagues in London, Vancouver and Quebec, we will put additional repayments into the pockets of Canadians in the coming years," said David Sterns, a partner at Toronto-based Sotos LLP. [GN] [*] Opioid Negotiation Class Subverts State Governmental Authority ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that an Ohio federal judge's creation of a "negotiation class" intended to help resolve the multidistrict opioid litigation subverts state governmental authority by allowing potentially every U.S. city and county to strike global settlements with drug companies, a coalition of states told the Sixth Circuit. [GN] [*] Threat of Litigation for CBD Companies Remains High Concern --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Wasserman, Esq. -- jessica.wasserman@gmlaw.com -- of Greenspoon Marder LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that as discussed in a past blog, the threat of litigation for CBD manufacturers remains a high concern as long as FDA does not establish a clear legal pathway for CBD. CBD manufacturers now operate in a gray area when producing and marketing ingestible CBD products, including food and supplements. Over the past months the threat of class action litigation has become a reality as several cases work their way through the courts and as demand letters are becoming more common. Three recent lawsuits have been brought based in large part on FDA's position that CBD is illegal in food and supplements. FDA has taken this position in public statements while FDA works toward "a pathway for regulation" as it has promised in numerous public statements, including on December 20, 2018, the day the 2018 Farm Bill, which removed hemp and hemp derived CBD from the Controlled Substance Act Schedule as a prohibited drug. The Warning Letters issued by FDA to CBD companies, with the most recent batch issued in November, have highlighted illegal drug claims but have also emphasized that CBD in ingestibles is per se illegal under the statutory provisions governing food and supplements. The governing statutes include provisions that preclude an "article" a molecule, such as CBD, from being an ingredient in a food or drug once the article has been in the process of approval as a prescription drug active ingredient. At the same time FDA has issued online statements highlighting possible harm (liver damage, drug interaction, male infertility) from CBD. Taken together, FDA's statements are attracting class action suits. Recent suits in California, Florida and Massachusetts allege that had consumers known that the products were illegal or that the claims not substantiated, they would not have purchased the CBD products. The causes of action in these cases have included false advertising, deceptive business practices, and fraud among others. Defenses have included that the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts and doe not allow a private right of action so that only the US Government can enforce. Another defense is that the FDA's position that CBD is not legal in food and supplements is merely policy decision and not the law. Defendants allege that FDA has the legal authority to override the so called preclusion provisions of the statute and can by agency action allow CBD in food and supplements. Defendants also have asked that the court stay the proceedings while FDA continues its rulemaking process for CBD. In fact, defendants in a recent Florida case were successful at obtaining a stay. There are compliance and business strategies that CBD companies can take to significantly reduce the risk of litigation. Prop 65 Update While companies are not vulnerable until January of next year, 2021, CBD companies are planning for compliance to avoid California Prop 65 class action litigation. While there is a year long compliance grace period, as of January 2020, THC and marijuana smoke were added to California's list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Prop 65. In about a year, companies selling CBD in California will be subject to Prop. 65 warning requirements and will face significant litigation risks if they don't comply with this state law. Prop 65 disputes are primarily enforced by class action suits, which is why compliance is key to the long-term success of your business. For about half the thousands of chemicals listed under Prop 65 include an established minimum level below which warnings are not required. However a minimum level has not been established for THC in CBD products and this is unlikely to be set within the grace year. Plaintiffs would likely take the position that mere presence constitutes exposure and requires a warning. We encourage manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers or distributors of CBD products to contact us for further information and to discuss litigation avoidance strategies or to be directed to our litigation department. [GN] [*] Volume of U.S. Securities Class Suit Settlements Dipped in 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that both the volume and value of U.S. securities class action settlements dropped in 2019, according to new data from ISS Securities Class Action Services LLC. The firm reported that there were 101 settlements in 2019, valued at $3.17 billion (all figures U.S. dollars). Both of those totals were down from the previous year, when there were 126 settlements, valued at $5.84 billion. However, much of the difference in settlement value was due to a single $3-billion settlement in 2018. The largest settlement in 2019 was for $389.6 million. "While 2019 was not as rich as 2018 in terms of overall settlement value, the settled cases represented a significant victory for shareholders," said Ivar Eilertsen, head of ISS Securities Class Action Services. The firm also noted that 74 federal court settlements were linked to alleged insider trading violations, 17 were tied to registration issues and six were tied to alleged violations of accounting rules. Along with the monetary damages, four companies were required to restate their financials. ISS Securities Class Action Services said that there are two major settlements expected in 2020, including one involving Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and one with American Realty Capital Properties. Both are expected to top the $1-billion mark. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***