/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200407.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 70
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cullinan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Moses Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Reed Suit Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Tomlinson Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
AIG PROPERTY: Violates Medicare Secondary Payer Act, MSP Alleges
ALIGN TECH: Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
ALL FREIGHT: Yarian Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Price Increases Amid COVID-19 Crisis
ASSET RECOVERY: Kostakos Asserts Breach of FDCPA
BEIERSDORF INC: Chenault Hits Non-Cash Payment for Overtime Pay
BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Dismissed Morones Labor Suit With Prejudice
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
CATLIN SPECIALTY: Somo Sues in Tennessee Over Insurance Issues
CHOBANI LLC: Ferreri Files Yogurt Product Mislabeling Suit
COLUMBIA MUTUAL: Remand of Slaughter Suit to State Court Denied
CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN: Construction Workers Seek Overtime Premium
CONSUMER PROTECTION: Badillo Sues Over Illegal Debt Servicing
CORE CIVIC OF TN: Galatian Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
CORE CIVIC OF TN: Gandara Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
CREDIT PROTECTION: Schicatano Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona
CRONOS GROUP: Finch Hits Share Drop from Bad Financial Reporting
DEVA CONCEPTS: Hair Care Users Sue Over Products' Side Effects
EDWARD JONES & CO: 8th Cir. Upholds Settlement in McDonald Suit
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Naughton Alleges
FARINE BAKING: Castillo Seeks Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
FITZCON CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
FRANK FRANK GOLDSTEIN: Keane Alleges Violation under FDCPA
FUCCILLO AFFILIATES: Settlement in Banks Suit Has Prelim Approval
FUNKO INC: Ferreira Sues Over Share Drop from Sales Flop
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Revision of Prior Order in Weimar Denied
GRANULES USA: Metformin Has High Level of NDMA, Wineinger Claims
HIGH OCTANE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, French Suit Alleges
HOMEADVISOR INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Margulis TCPA Suit
HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Barber as Class Suit Denied
ILLINOIS: Class of Trans Women Prisoners in Monroe Suit Certified
KAUFF'S INC: Tow Truck Drivers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
LAW SOLUTIONS: Bid to Withdraw Complaint Reference in Mikulin Nixed
LEIF JOHNSON: Faces Smith Class Suit in Texas District Court
LHC GROUP: Awaits Appeal From Dismissal of Rosenblatt Case
MDL 2895: MSP Recovery v. Amgen Inc. Over Sensipar Consolidated
MGP INGREDIENTS: Corbezzolo Hits Share Drop from Unsold Booze
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lantry Files FDCPA Suit in California
NATIONAL LUMBER: Misclassifies Framing Workers, Torres Suit Says
NCB MANAGEMENT: Laurent Files FDCPA Suit in New York
NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Phillips Suit Still Pending
NEW ERA ASSET: Tanenbaum Files Suit in New York
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Douglas Hits Share Drop from Overrated Forecast
NORWICH, CT: Connecticut District Grants Bids to Dismiss Adams Suit
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Macius Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Fisher May Amend Complaint Over Unpaid Wages
PAM TRANSPORT: Court Rules on Defendants' Motions in Browne Suit
PAYPAL CREDIT: Dermer Disputes Interest on Cancelled Purchase
PLANTRONICS INC: $557K Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Shin Suit
POLLYS PIES: Sutander ADA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
POSTMATES INC: Faces Cobb TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
RAYMOND WEDLAKE: Faces Alvarez Suit in South Carolina Circuit Ct.
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in Calif.
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Asserts Breach of FDCPA
SMITH & NEPHEW: Faces Johnson FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
SOKO GLAM: New York Southern District Dismisses Tatum-Rios ADA Suit
SONY INTERACTIVE: Crawford Hits Loose Gaming Payment System
STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Gracius Files Suit in New York
STRATEGIC SECURITY: Security Guards Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
SUNSHINE BEHAVIORAL: Fuentes Sues Over Data Breach
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY: Thomas Sues Over Gender/Race Wage Gap
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Couple Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
US PACK: Kendus FLSA Suit Moved From D. Maryland to M.D. Florida
VALENTINE AND KERBATAS: Cardenas Hits Illegal Collection Letter
WIPRO LIMITED: Faces MacLean Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
ZION OIL: Court Narrows Claims in Peak Securities Suit
*********
3M COMPANY: Cullinan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MICHAEL CULLINAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00995-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Cullinan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Moses Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. MOSES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00974-RMG (D.S.C., March 9,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Moses case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Reed Suit Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILBURN SHERRILL REED v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00996-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Reed case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Tomlinson Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD TOMLINSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00987-RMGs (D.S.C., March
10, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and
for those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Tomlinson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
AIG PROPERTY: Violates Medicare Secondary Payer Act, MSP Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity v. AIG Property
Casualty Company, a New York for-profit corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-02102-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the
Defendant for violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has systematically and
uniformly failed to honor its primary payer obligations under 42
U.S.C. section 1395y, otherwise known as the MSP Law, by failing to
pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries
sustained in automobile and other accidents that should have been
paid by Defendant but, instead, were paid by Medicare and/or
Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs).
As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses
has been borne by Medicare and MAOs to the detriment of the
Medicare fund and the public, says the complaint.
The Defendant is an auto or other liability insurer that provides
either no-fault or med-pay insurance to its customers, including
Medicare beneficiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
Janpaul Portal, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brickell World Plaza
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
Facsimile (305) 379-6222
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jpp@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
- and -
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 661-2021
Facsimile: (786) 221-2903
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ALIGN TECH: Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Align Technology,
Inc., Joseph M. Hogan and John F. Morici, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01822, (S.D. N.Y., March 2, 2020), seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Align is a medical device company that designs, manufactures, and
markets devices to treat misaligned teeth.
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System owns common stock of
Align Technology. It claims that Align failed to disclose details
about its performance in China where the demand for its products
were deteriorating. The price of Align stock dropped from $275.16
per share to $200.90 per share, a loss of nearly $75 per share,
representing a one-day decline in market capitalization of over
$5.4 billion. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Fax: (312) 674-4676
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Phone: (313) 578-1200
Fax: (313) 578-1201
Email address: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
ALL FREIGHT: Yarian Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California remanded the case, WAYNE YARIAN, Plaintiff,
v. ALL FREIGHT CARRIERS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV
19-9172 DSF (Ex) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles.
The case is a class action wage-and-hour case brought by a truck
driver based on California statutes. The Plaintiff claims he was
subject to unlawful pay deductions, failure to pay overtime, and
various other alleged violations of California statutory law.
The class is defined as current and former drivers, including but
not limited to those misclassified as independent contractors or
owner-operators, who performed work for the Defendants in the State
of California at any time during the four years preceding the
filing of the action, and continuing while the action is pending.
The parties dispute how the amount in controversy should be
calculated. The Defendants argue that because the class definition
includes California residents and non-residents who performed work
in California, the amount in controversy includes damages for all
work performed by those class members for Defendants anywhere in
the country. The Plaintiff argues that a reasonable interpretation
of the amount in controversy only includes damages relating to work
that would actually be subject to California law.
Judge Fischer agrees with the Plaintiff that a determination of the
amount in controversy must be in light of a reasonable
interpretation of the scope of the laws at issue. There is nothing
in California law that suggests the amount in controversy
calculation by the Defendants is remotely connected to any amounts
that could reasonably be in controversy under California law.
There is simply no support in California law for the idea that the
California employment statutes at issue could apply to work by
non-residents outside of California or for work by California
residents that took place entirely outside of California.
Sullivan does leave open the possibility that California statutes
could apply to work by California residents outside the state where
the California residents leave the state temporarily during the
course of the normal workday and return by the end of the workday.
But the Defendants provide no evidence of the nature of the
Plaintiff's work outside of California so there is no basis to
believe that extraterritoriality would apply to any of his
out-of-state work, let alone all of it.
The Plaintiff has not attempted to alter his class definition -- it
still includes both residents of California and non-residents who
performed work in California. The question is not about the effect
of post-removal changes; it is about the proper interpretation of
the pre-removal complaint. As noted, the Plaintiff is not
attempting to rewrite his complaint to drop damages that he
explicitly asked for but now claims are not recoverable. The
essence of the motion is to provide a reasonable interpretation of
what the Plaintiff was actually asking for in his complaint, which
in this context requires reference to the underlying California
law.
The Defendants have rested solely on a classwide amount in
controversy that includes out of state work by nonresident drivers.
Therefore, they have failed to demonstrate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. They have also included all out of
state work done by the Plaintiff in their calculation of the amount
in controversy under traditional diversity. Because they have made
no attempt to show that the calculation only includes work that
could possibly be subject to the extraterritorial application of
California law, the Defendants have also failed to demonstrate that
the Plaintiff's individual damages exceed $75,000.
For these reasons, Judge Fischer granted the motion to remand. The
Judge remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZuRYF2 from Leagle.com.
Wayne Yarian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Taras Peter Kick, The Kick Law
Office, APC & Daniel Joseph Bass -- daniel@kicklawfirm.com -- The
Kick Law Firm APC.
All Freight Carriers, Inc., an Illinois Corporation & AFC Logistics
Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendants, represented by Maggy
Mokhles Athanasious -- mathanasious@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, Craig Gerald Staub -- cstaub@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC & James Becerra, Littler Mendelson PC.
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Price Increases Amid COVID-19 Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ARMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 04631782 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade Cty.), arises from the Defendant's unlawful price
increases amid COVID-19 epidemic, in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
COVID-19 is a novel form of coronavirus which, in early 2020,
emerged from Wuhan, China, and spread easily and sustainably across
geographic areas.
COVID-19's rapid spread and the very real threat of a widespread
quarantine have caused a run on various personal hygiene products,
such as disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizer, and toilet paper, the
Plaintiff says.
On March 9, 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of
emergency in Florida. That declaration allows the State of Florida
"to create a unified command structure and allows, if need be, out
of state medical personnel to operate in Florida" in order to
address and work to contain the disease. Between March 7 and 8,
2020, the Florida Legislature agreed to allocate $25 million to
fight the continued spread of coronavirus in the state.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company based in
Seattle with 750,000 employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
Francesco A. Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo E. Bertran, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Phone: (305) 461-5100
E-Mail: alfred@armaslaw.com
fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
ASSET RECOVERY: Kostakos Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Antonios Kostakos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02060 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 741-4799
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
BEIERSDORF INC: Chenault Hits Non-Cash Payment for Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Chenault, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Beiersdorf, Inc., Defendant Case No.
20-cv-00174 (S.D. Ohio, February 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime pay, liquidated damages in an equal amount, declaratory
and injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Beiersdorf is an international skincare company which produces
brands such as NIVEA, Eucerin and Aquaphor where Chenault worked as
an hourly forklift driver/warehouse worker at its
warehouse/shipping and receiving center in West Chester Township,
Ohio. Chernault claims overtime pay for the hours he worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek during the August 4, 2019 to
August 10, 2019 workweek. He claims that we was issued "gift cards"
in lieu of cash payment for overtime but these are not considered
legal tender. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
Robb S. Stokar, Esq.
MINNILLO & JENKINS Co., LPA
2712 Observatory Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Tel: (513) 723-1600
Fax: (513) 723-1620
Email: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
rstokar@minnillojenkins.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Dismissed Morones Labor Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA MORONES, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-03010-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morris C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Parties' Stipulated Request for
Order of Dismissal.
The case and the all individual and class action claims asserted
against Defendant Bimbo in the case are dismissed in its entirety
with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own respective fees and
costs. All pending proceedings are vacated and no further
proceedings will take place in the action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/YrVktg from Leagle.com.
Maria Morones, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group & Nicholas Rosenthal
-- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Adrianne
Baltazar -- ashley.baltazar@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & John Spivey Battenfeld --
john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal of the consolidated class action suit pending before the
Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court,
and is pending.
On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits, Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., were filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company, certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, Summit
Partners, the company's largest investor, and the underwriters from
the company's December 15, 2017 initial public offering, which the
company refers to as its IPO.
These complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO. The
complaints generally allege that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended,, because documents related to the company's
IPO including its registration statement and prospectus were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and
Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and
in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
On August 13, 2019, the Court consolidated these actions and
referred the consolidated actions to the Business Litigation
Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court (the "BLS"). On
September 3, 2019, the BLS accepted the consolidated action into
its session for further proceedings. On November 12, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common
stock in and/or traceable to its IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations and asserts the same claims as the two initial
complaints, described above. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission
or a rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive
relief. On January 14, 2020, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CATLIN SPECIALTY: Somo Sues in Tennessee Over Insurance Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catlin Specialty
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Somo Enterprises,
Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Catlin
Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00067-TAV-CHS (E.D.
Tenn., March 10, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan.
The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.
Catlin offers casualty, professional, property, construction, and
specialty insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 West Short Street, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 225-3731
- and -
Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
E-mail: jonathan@msb.law
- and -
J Brandon McWherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
CHOBANI LLC: Ferreri Files Yogurt Product Mislabeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Ferreri and Priscilla Rumnit, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chobani, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02161 (S.D. N.Y., March 10, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of contract and for violation of the Consumer Protection
from Deceptive acts of New York business laws.
Chobani manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells yogurt
products under the Chobani brand. Plaintiffs dispute Chobani's
claim that their yogurt is flavored only with vanilla. They allege
that the product contains non-vanilla flavors which imitate and
extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
COLUMBIA MUTUAL: Remand of Slaughter Suit to State Court Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN E. SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a COLUMBIA INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-1023 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado
Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The putative class action lawsuit arises out of a motor vehicle
accident that rendered the Plaintiff's 2003 Chevrolet Silverado
C1500 truck a total loss. The Plaintiff alleges that CMIC failed
to pay the actual cash value of his totaled vehicle because it
utilized a valuation report which it allegedly knew undervalued
claims.
On March 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed in state court his initial
complaint against Columbia Insurance Group, seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
On April 22, 2019, he filed an amended complaint in state court,
also seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. The amended complaint named only CMIC
as a defendant, and Columbia Insurance Group was subsequently
dismissed from the case on April 29, 2019, which is the same day
that CMIC was served with the amended complaint.
On May 22, 2019, CMIC removed the case to the Court, invoking
federal diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"). The Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion to Remand,
arguing that CMIC's notice of removal was untimely because it was
filed more than 30 days after CMIC received notice of the original
complaint. CMIC argues that the 30-day removal period was never
triggered because the removability of this case was not
ascertainable from the allegations in the initial complaint.
Judge Hickey holds that neither the initial nor amended complaint
disclosed an aggregate amount in controversy. Both complaints
simply alleged that millions of dollars were saved each year at the
expense of the insureds due to CMIC's undervaluing of insureds'
vehicles following a total loss claim. Neither complaint specified
the size of the putative class nor the amount demanded by each
putative class member.
The Plaintiff's allegation that "millions of dollars were saved
each year at the expense of the insureds" is not sufficient
information that would allow CMIC to "unambiguously ascertain" that
more than $5 million was in controversy. Thus, when CMIC
investigated and filed a notice of removal based on the results of
its own amount-in-controversy investigation, the notice was timely
because the 30-day removal period had not yet been triggered.
Accordingly, Judge Hickey denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Rs08Bn from Leagle.com.
Stephen E. Slaughter, Plaintiff, represented by John Holleman --
jholleman@johnholleman.net -- Holleman & Associate P.A., Lloyd W.
Kitchens, III, Brad Hendricks Law Firm & Timothy A. Steadman,
Holleman & Associates, P.A.
Columbia Mutual Insurance Company, doing business as Columbia
Insurance Group, Defendant, represented by Paul D. Waddell --
pwaddell@wcjfirm.com -- Waddell, Cole & Jones, P.A., Sam Waddell --
swaddell@wcjfirm.com -- Waddell, Cole & Jones & Stefan Shane Baker
-- sbaker@wcjfirm.com -- Waddell, Cole & Jones, PLLC.
CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN: Construction Workers Seek Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Esparza, Jose Esparza, Marco Esparza, Sergio Paz and Mario
Esparza, on behalf of themselves, and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Construction
& Design Group, Inc., Robert Filec, Jr. and Luis Puente,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01707, (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2020),
seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of all unpaid
compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred and
such additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of
Chicago.
Defendants own and operate a construction and remodeling business
that performs demolition, construction, installation and
maintenance for businesses where Plaintiffs worked as construction
workers. Plaintiffs claim to have been denied time and one-half
their regular or effective hourly rate for work performed in excess
of forty hours within a statutory workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312) 853-1450
Website: www.billhornlaw.com
CONSUMER PROTECTION: Badillo Sues Over Illegal Debt Servicing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandria Badillo, on behalf of herself, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Consumer Protection Legal Center,
LLC and Nasim Anthony Najeeb, Defendants, Case No. 2020CH02962,
(Ill. Cir., March 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and costs
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act and the Illinois Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act.
Consumer Protection Legal Center, LLC and Nasim Anthony Najeeb are
debt settlement providers that target consumers who are in debt.
Badillo eventually came across Consumer Protection Legal Center
which offered debt settlement services and she eventually signed up
with them. However, she discovered that Consumer Protection Legal
Center is not licensed as a debt settlement provider in Illinois
and that they charge illegal service fees for such services.
Nasim Anthony Najeeb is the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Consumer Protection Legal Center. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER P.C.
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1360
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 858-3239
Fax: (312) 610-5646
Email: bryan.thornpson@cclc-law.com
rob.harrer@cclc-law.com
- and -
Steven Uhrich, Esq.
UHRICH LAW, P.C.
N. State Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (773) 969-6337
Fax: (773) 496-6968
Email: steven@uhrichlawpc.com
CORE CIVIC OF TN: Galatian Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Scott Galatian, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Core Civic of Tennessee, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00229, (W.D. Okla., March 12, 2020),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Core Civic operates dozens of correctional facilities throughout
the country including at least four in Oklahoma where Galatian
worked as a correctional officer at its Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing.
Galatian Seeks compensation for hours spent completing security
screenings before each shift. [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 -
Edward L. White, Esq.
Kerry D. Green, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, PC
829 E. 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
Email: ed@edwhitelaw.com
kerry@edwhitelaw.com
CORE CIVIC OF TN: Gandara Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Gandara, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Core Civic of Tennessee, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00680, (D. Colo., March 12, 2020), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Core Civic operates dozens of correctional facilities throughout
the country including at least four in Oklahoma where Galatian
worked as a correctional officer at its Bent County Correctional
Facility.
Gandara claims compensation for hours spent completing security
screenings before each shift. [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
CREDIT PROTECTION: Schicatano Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Protection
Association LP. The case is styled as Denise Schicatano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00635-MTM (D. Ariz., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Credit Protection Association is an agency licensed to collect
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Majdi Y Hijazin, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group Limited
2500 S Highland Ave., Ste. 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mhijazin@hijazinlaw.com
CRONOS GROUP: Finch Hits Share Drop from Bad Financial Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Finch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cronos Group Inc., Mike Gorenstein and
Jerry Barbato, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01324, (E.D. N.Y., March
12, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Cronos is a Canadian cannabinoid company with international
production and distribution across five continents.
The complaint asserts that Cronos improperly recognized revenue
from several bulk resin purchases and sales of products through its
wholesale channel thus exposing its adequacy in internal controls
over financial reporting.
On this news, the price of the Cronos' common stock dropped from a
close of $6.02 per share on March 2, 2020 to a close of $5.32 per
share on March 3, 2020. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
tjm@rigrodskylong.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 507-6085
Email: www.GrabarLaw.com
DEVA CONCEPTS: Hair Care Users Sue Over Products' Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shakonda Harts, Denisse Arambula, Ashia Lynn, Rosa Young and Deanna
Malara, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Deva Concepts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02048
(C.D. Cal., March 2, 2020), seeks monetary, statutory and punitive
damages, compensatory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, costs and fees incurred in connection with
this action, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and
other costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law of the
California Business and Professions Code, California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and consumer protections laws of various
states.
DevaCurl produces hair care products for consumers with curly,
super curly and wavy hair. Plaintiffs complained of hair loss, hair
damage, balding and scalp injury when using these products. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Tel: (877) 500-8780
Fax: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
alia.abdi@zimmreed.com
EDWARD JONES & CO: 8th Cir. Upholds Settlement in McDonald Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan; Windle
Pompey, Plaintiffs, Valeska Schultz; Melanie Waugh; Rosalind
Staley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.,
Defendant-Appellee. The Jones Financial Companies, Defendant. The
Edward Jones Investment and Education Committee,
Defendant-Appellee. John & Jane Does, 1-25, Defendant. Brett
Bayston; Bonnie Caudle; Mark Vivian; Stina Wishman; Jan-Marie Kain;
Linda Banniester; Ann Echelmeier; Curtis Long; David Gibson; Ken
Blanchard; Jason Jonczak; Julie Rea; Asma Usmani; Glenn Kolod; Juli
Johnson; Jess Dechant; Peggy Robinson; Edward Jones Profit Sharing
and 401(k) Administrative Committee; John Does, 1-30,
Defendants-Appellees, v. Shiyang Huang, Objector-Appellant. Anna
Mae Krause; Heath J. Petsche, Objectors, Case No. 19-2158 (8th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the district court's judgment certifying a settlement class,
approving the settlement agreement, and awarding attorneys' fees
and case contribution awards.
In the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class
action, objector Shiyang Huang appeals the district court's
judgment. Initially, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs
had standing to bring the class action. It also concludes that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), as the action
was brought on behalf of the plan and requested plan-wide relief,
raising the risk of inconsistent adjudications that would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for defendants if individual
actions were brought. Further, the named Plaintiffs' case
contribution awards did not render their interests adverse to those
of the class, and the court did not abuse its discretion in
granting the awards and attorneys' fees, the Appellate Court
opines.
A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/xWChrN from Leagle.com.
Thomas J. Kavaler -- tkavaler@cahill.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Jonathan D. Thier, for Defendant-Appellee.
Elizabeth C. Carver, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James F. Bennett -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Jeffrey Russell Baron -- jbaron@baileyglasser.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- for Plaintiff.
James E. Crowe, III, for Defendant-Appellee.
Mark G. Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- for Plaintiff.
Julie E. Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip Allen Cantwell -- pcantwell@dowdbennett.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Douglas Patrick Needham, for Plaintiff.
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Naughton Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY NAUGHTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00367-HEA (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2020), seeks to put an end to
Evenflo's alleged improper marketing of Big Kid Booster, and sales
tactics of putting profits over the safety of American children.
In the early 2000s and in order to address the need for a vehicular
safety device for young children too big for an infant car seat,
but still too small or too young to properly fit or to stay in a
seat belt, companies began selling booster seats, which elevated
children so that the automobile seat belts fit more securely.
According to the complaint, in the highly competitive market for
booster seats, Evenflo sells the Big Kid Booster Seat (Big Kid
Booster), a seat cushion used to elevate children sitting in
automobiles. Evenflo labels and markets the Big Kid Booster in the
United States as "safe" for children as light as 30 pounds and as
young as three years old. Evenflo boasts that the Big Kid Booster
is the "the best way to minimize injuries to your child" and
claimed that it would "greatly reduce the risk of serious injury to
your child in a crash." But according to recently published
reports, Evenflo has known since at least 2008 if not earlier that
its Big Kid Booster is not safe for children under forty pounds and
four years of age nor does it appreciably reduce the risk of
serious injury or death from side-impact accidents, the Plaintiff
avers.
Evenflo designed its own side-impact tests and yet failed even
those lax standards. Recently released video from 2008 testing
shows that Evenflo's tests unmistakably demonstrated that a child
seated in its booster could be in grave danger in such a crash.
Evenflo's tests were not comparable to federal government tests,
which simulate accidents at higher speeds and involving impacts
into external objects; Evenflo's tests merely simulated rapid
deceleration, says the complaint.
Evenflo was first formed in the 1920s as a manufacturer of products
related to baby feeding. For many years, Evenflo produced baby
bottles, nipples, and other related accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: 618-259-2222
Facsimile: 618-259-2251
E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
Facsimile: 919-600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
martha@wbmllp.com
pat@wbmllp.com
harper@wbmllp.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
FARINE BAKING: Castillo Seeks Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fausto Castillo, on behalf of themselves, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Premium of Jackson Heights, LLC,
Michael Mignano, Sabbir Ahmed, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01140, (E.D. N.Y., March 2, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid
"spread of hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants operate as "Farine Baking Company," a restaurant located
at 74-24 37th Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York where Castillo
worked as a kitchen dishwasher from March 2019 until February 9,
2020. He generally works over 40 hours per week without the
appropriate overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. (212) 209-3933
Fax. (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
FITZCON CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Chuchuca, Luis Dario Guartan, Adrian Guzman and Herlindo
Soriano de la Rosa, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc.,
Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp., Esco Hirf Co. Inc., Ronan
Fitzpatrick, Cornelius O'Sullivan and John Does #1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-02178 (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2020), seeks
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, "spread of hours" requirements of New York Labor
Law and statutory damages for violation of the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
Defendants owned and operated construction companies with offices
in Manhattan that were engaged in numerous construction projects in
New York City where Plaintiffs worked as construction workers. They
regularly worked seven days per week typically working roughly
twelve-hour days, all without overtime pay, says the complaint.
Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch,
timesheets, or any other method for him to track his time worked.
Defendants also failed to provide written wage notices providing
contact information, regular and overtime rates and intended
allowances claimed. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 563-9884
Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com
FRANK FRANK GOLDSTEIN: Keane Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank, Frank,
Goldstein & Nager, P.C. The case is styled as Anna Keane,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Frank, Frank, Goldstein & Nager, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02676 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Frank, Frank, Goldstein & Nager is a nationally recognized New York
collection law firm located in the heart of Times Square.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
FUCCILLO AFFILIATES: Settlement in Banks Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACEY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FUCCILLO AFFILIATES OF FLORIDA,
INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-227-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John E. Steele of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement filed on Oct. 31, 2019.
The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, subject
to the revisions. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated by
reference into the Order.
By stipulation of the Parties, and pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge preliminarily certified
the following Settlement Class: All individuals within the United
States (i) who were sent a prerecorded message (ii) by or on behalf
of Defendant (iii) using ringless voicemail technology (iv) during
the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the
date of preliminary approval.
The Judge appointed Banks as the Class Representative; and Scott A.
Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, PA, Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis &
Gentile, P.A., Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo, P.A., Michael
Eisenband of Eisenband Law, P.A., and Ignacio J. Hiraldo of IJH Law
as the Class Counsel.
He approves the firm Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC as the
Administrator.
The Judge disapproved of providing notice to the Settlement Class
using the "Mail Notice," as it contains insufficient information to
inform the Settlement Class Members of their rights under the
Settlement. He approved of the Parties providing notice to the
Settlement Class by mail using the "Long Form Notice." The
Parties' proposed notice is thus adopted to the extent the Parties
provide notice by mail using the "Long Form Notice," as modified.
He ordered that the Parties provide notice to the Settlement Class
using the "Long Form Notice" on May 6, 2020.
The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2020 at 10:00
a.m. in Fort Myers Courtroom 6A.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Hv14bR from Leagle.com.
Stacey Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ignacio Hiraldo, IJH Law,
Jordan David Utanski, Chase Law & Associates, Manuel Santiago
Hiraldo, Hiraldo PA, Michael Eisenband, Eisenband Law, P.A., Scott
Adam Edelsberg -- scott@edelsberglaw.com -- Edelsberg Law, PA &
Andrew John Shamis -- ashamis@shamisgentile.com -- Shamis &
Gentile, PA.
Fuccillo Affiliates of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Alan E. Brown, Morrison Mahoney, LLP, pro
hac vice, Arthur J. Liederman -- aliederman@morrisonmahoney.com --
Morrison Mahoney LLP, pro hac vice & Nichole M. Mooney --
NMooney@deanmead.com -- Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano &
Bozarth, PA.
FUNKO INC: Ferreira Sues Over Share Drop from Sales Flop
--------------------------------------------------------
Gilberto Ferreira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel
And Jennifer Fall Jung, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05857 (C.D.
Cal., March 10, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians and sports teams.
Funko failed to disclose to investors that it was experiencing
lower than expected sales and was reasonably likely to incur a
write-down for slower moving inventory. On February 5, 2020, after
the market closed, Funko announced a decrease in sales of 8%
compared to $233 million in the fourth quarter of 2018. On this
news, Funko's share price closed at $6.92 on March 6, 2020 from
$9.29 per share on February 6, 2020.
Ferreira purchased Funko securities and lost. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Revision of Prior Order in Weimar Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN M. WEIMAR, Plaintiff, v. GEICO ADVANTAGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19-2698-JTF-tmp (W.D.
Tenn.), Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, (i) denied
Geico's motion for revision of the Court's prior order, (ii)
granted in part Geico's motion for clarification of the Court's
prior order, and (iii) denied Weimar's motion for sanctions.
Weimar filed a putative class action against Geico in state court.
In the state court discovery process, Weimar wanted Geico to
produce its claims files for uninsured motorists from a certain
period. Geico resisted producing these files. The state court
forged a compromise and ordered Geico to produce 20% of its claims
files for uninsured motorists from the relevant period. Geico then
served Weimar with an interrogatory asking him to identify those
claims of the sample it produced that Weimar believed had been
mishandled.
The text of Geico's interrogatory asked Weimar to "identify" the
claims "by claim number," describe in detail the data from the
claim file, and describe in detail why the Plaintiff alleges the
claim was mishandled. Weimar refused to do so, asserting
proportionality and attorney work product objections. Geico moved
to compel in state court.
The state court orally ruled on Geico's motion to compel. The
state court allowed Weimar to amend his complaint to add a request
for punitive damages. The amendment to Weimar's complaint
increased the damages at issue over the threshold for removal to
federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Later
the same day, Geico filed notice of removal. Consequently, a
written order memorializing the state court's oral rulings on the
motion to compel was never entered. Despite the absence of a
written order, on Nov. 15, 2019, Weimar produced a spreadsheet to
Geico identifying by Bates number and document identification
number the documents in Geico's sample of claims files that Weimar
argues were mishandled.
Geico moved to compel in federal court. It argued that Weimar's
response was insufficient because, to quote Geico's original motion
to compel, the Plaintiff does not identify the claims by claim
number, describe in detail the data from the claim file, or
describe in detail why the Plaintiff alleges the claim was
mishandled, as required by the Chancery Court's ruling. In
response, Weimar argued that he had complied with the state court's
order by simply identifying those claims files he believed were
mishandled. In addition, Weimar raised a number of arguments about
why the state court's order should not have been granted.
The Court rejected Weimar's arguments about why the state court's
order should not have been granted. Consistent with 28 U.S.C.
Section 1450, it concluded the state court's order remained binding
on the parties. However, it interpreted the state court's order
more narrowly than Geico. The Court reasoned that the state
court's oral ruling did not say anything about identification by
claims number rather than Bates number. That requirement appears
in Geico's original interrogatory, not in anything announced by the
state court. The Court declines to assume the state court adopted
all of Geico's interrogatory by implication.
The Court held that the state court's oral ruling required Weimar
to identify those claims he alleges were mishandled. As Weimar had
(apparently) already done that, this court denied this aspect of
the motion to compel. The Court granted the motion to compel
certain other disputed discovery responses.
Geico moves for revision of the Order. It makes three arguments in
support of revision, two express and one strongly implied. The
first express argument is that Weimar has indicated in a subsequent
filing that he reviewed the claims files Geico provided. The
second express argument is that Weimar has made inconsistent legal
argument in different filings, particularly about the attorney work
product doctrine. The third argument -- not explicitly stated but
strongly implied -- is that the Court simply erred.
In the alternative, Geico asks the Court to clarify its prior order
to state whether or not it intends for its Order to protect the
Plaintiff from the disclosures of the results of his review for the
duration of the litigation, or, in the alternative, whether it
intends that the Plaintiff be protected from disclosing the results
of the review until later. In response, Weimar has moved sanctions
against Geico for filing the motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) and Local Rule 7.3(c).
Magistrate Judge Pham holds that Geico's first argument for
revision -- that Weimar has subsequently admitted he reviewed the
claims files, meaning it would not be burdensome for him to give
reasons for why he believes each claims file was mishandled -- is
unpersuasive. He reviewed the hearing transcript and concluded it
did not say anything about requiring Weimar to provide reasons for
why each claims file was mishandled. At this stage of the
litigation, requiring Weimar to give individual reasons for why
each of 1,088 claims files was mishandled would be burdensome,
regardless of whether Weimar has reviewed those files.
Geico's second argument for revision -- Weimar's supposedly
inconsistent positions in different motions -- is also
unpersuasive. To the extent Weimar's arguments may be
inconsistent, it is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that
justifies an order of revision.
Geico's third argument -- that the court erred because the
company's interrogatory did not ask for a detailed analysis --
could have been made in its original briefing. If Geico wanted to
argue its interrogatory simply sought to have the Plaintiff
identify, from the review that he has already conducted, those
claim files for which it contends a deductible was applied when it
should not have been, then Geico could have argued that in its
original motion. Geico chose not to argue that. It instead argued
that Weimar's response was deficient because the Plaintiff does not
'identify' the claims by claim number, describe in detail the data
from the claim file, or describe in detail why the Plaintiff
alleges the claim was mishandled, as required by the Chancery
Court's ruling. Geico is not free to take a new position in its
motion for revision.
Furthermore, if Geico's interrogatory was actually as limited as it
now asserts, this dispute would be moot. Weimar has provided Geico
with a list of claims files Weimar believes were mishandled. Were
this dispute actually a question of Weimar identifing, from the
review that he has already conducted, those claim files for which
it contends a deductible was applied when it should not have been,
the original motion to compel and the motion for revision
presumably would never have been brought. The dispute exists
because Geico is asking for more than that. The motion for
revision is denied.
In the alternative, Geico asks that the Court clarifies its Order
and state whether or not it intends for its Order to protect the
Plaintiff from the disclosures of the results of his review for the
duration of the litigation, or, in the alternative, whether it
intends that the Plaintiff be protected from disclosing the results
of the review until later.
If Geico is asking if the Court's ruling was based on Weimar's
attorney work product objection, it was not. Magistrate Judge Pham
expressly declined to consider Weimar's arguments about why the
state court's order should not have been granted, including his
work product objection. The Court's ruling was based on the
specific issues presented in the motion to compel and was not
intended to address any future discovery disputes that might arise
between the parties.
There is one aspect of the Court's prior order that does need to be
clarified. At the time of its order, the Court was under the
impression that Weimar's list of mishandled claims files took the
form of a sworn supplement to his interrogatory response.
According to Geico's reply to Weimar's response to the motion for
revision, it is not the case. Magistrate Judge Pham thus clarifies
that Weimar's list of mishandled claims should have taken the form
of a sworn supplement to his interrogatory response. He orders
that Weimar will provide such a sworn supplement within five days
of entry of the Order.
Finally, Weimar argues that Geico should be sanctioned for filing
the motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) and Local Rule 7.3(c). In light of the fact
this motion is at least partially successful, Magistrate Judge Pham
denies the motion for sanctions.
For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Pham (i) denied the motion
for revision, (ii) granted in part the motion to clarify, and (ii)
denied the motion for sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TSrkGi from Leagle.com.
Jonathan H. Weimar, Plaintiff, represented by Frank L. Watson, III,
WATSON BURNS, LLC, Malcolm Brown Futhey, III, THE FUTHEY LAW FIRM
PLC, William F. Burns -- bburns@watsonburns.com -- WATSON BURNS,
LLC & William E. Routt, III -- wroutt@watsonburns.com -- WATSON
BURNS, PLLC.
Geico Advantage Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Walter
Preston Battle, IV -- pbattle@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON
BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC & George T. Lewis, III --
blewis@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ.
GRANULES USA: Metformin Has High Level of NDMA, Wineinger Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN WINEINGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GRANULES USA, INC. and GRANULES PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02556-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., March 9, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the
generic medication metformin that contains dangerously high levels
of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.
Metformin is a prescription medication that has been sold under
brand names such as Glucophage. Metformin is used to control high
blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, Granules'
manufacturing process has caused metformin to contain dangerously
high levels of NDMA, says the complaint.
NDMA is a semivolatile organic chemical. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NDMA "is a member of
N-ni-trosamines, a family of potent carcinogens."
On March 2, 2020, Valisure, an online pharmacy registered with the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Food & Drug Administration,
detected high levels of NDMA in specific batches of prescription
drug products containing metformin. This included metformin
manufactured by Granules.
Granules had not yet issued a recall of metformin, and continues to
tout on its Web site that it is "committed to excellence in
manufacturing and quality," the Plaintiff notes. However, these
representations are false, as the Defendants' metformin medication
contains the carcinogenic impurity NDMA, the Plaintiff alleges.
Granules is a fully integrated pharmaceutical manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
HIGH OCTANE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, French Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS FRENCH, MICHAEL LEBRUN, ALEX COLLINS, and JUSTIN LONGCOY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HIGH
OCTANE HARLEY DAVIDSON, KHD INC., PLATINUM-HR, LLC, and PAUL
VERACKA, Case No. 20-673 (Mass. Super., March 9, 2020), seeks
damages arising from the Defendants' failure to properly pay wages
pursuant to the Mass. Gen. Laws.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint individually, and on behalf of
a class of former or current non-exempt employees, who have worked
on a 100% commission basis, and have worked over 40 hours during a
week and/or on at least one Sunday or covered holiday in
Massachusetts within the last three years prior to the filing of
this action, but whose payments for such work were based on a
commission or draw on a commission.
The Plaintiffs worked as salespersons for the Defendants.
High Octane operates a store chain selling signature motorcycle
brands. Paul Veracka is the owner of High Octane. KHD is an
engineering company that supplies machinery, parts, and services,
including process engineering and project management to the global
cement industry. Platinum HR is the foundation of business payroll
services human capital management solution.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Gardner, Esq.
Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
One State Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: 617-390-7570
E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Margulis TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARILYN MARGULIS and MAX MARGULIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v.
HOMEADVISOR, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant(s), Case No.
4:19-cv-00226-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Clark of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denied without prejudice Defendant HomeAdvisor's Motion
to Compel Individual Arbitration and Enforce Class Action Waiver.
The case involves claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and Missouri's No-Call Law. Plaintiffs Max and Marilyn
Margulis allege that they received multiple unsolicited
telemarketing calls from Defendant HomeAdvisor or unidentified
individuals acting on HomeAdvisor's behalf.
After HomeAdvisor removed the case to federal court, the Plaintiffs
amended their Complaint to add class action allegations.
HomeAdvisor subsequently filed the present Motion to Compel
Individual Arbitration and Enforce Class Action Waiver. It asserts
that the Plaintiffs consented to arbitrate the dispute with
HomeAdvisor and agreed not to commence or maintain any class action
against HomeAdvisor. The Plaintiffs contend that they did not
enter into contracts with HomeAdvisor and therefore no such
arbitration agreement or class action waiver exists. They also
request oral argument on HomeAdvisor's Motion.
HomeAdvisor moves to compel arbitration because -- according to
HomeAdvisor -- the Plaintiffs used HomeAdvisor's website and
thereby agreed to HomeAdvisor's Terms and Conditions, which include
an agreement to arbitrate. The Plaintiffs dispute that they ever
consented to the Terms and Conditions or otherwise agreed to
arbitration. Thus, the threshold question the Court must address
is whether the Parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
Judge Clark finds that HomeAdvisor has failed to connect the
Plaintiffs to the IP address at issue. The "unexplained gap" in
HomeAdvisor's proffered evidence leaves a genuine issue of fact as
to whether the Plaintiffs created the HomeAdvisor.com accounts and
thereby agreed to the Terms and Conditions. Because at least one
genuine issue of material fact remains, the Judge must deny
HomeAdvisor's Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Although the Judge has analyzed HomeAdvisor's Motion to Compel
Arbitration under a summary-judgment standard, the present Motion
was submitted and briefed without either party having the benefit
of discovery. It may be that, after a reasonable period of
discovery, no genuine issues of material fact remain. Accordingly,
and in the interest of judicial economy, Judge Clark denies
HomeAdvisor's present Motion to Compel Arbitration without
prejudice.
The Parties will be allowed a reasonable period of time to engage
in limited discovery limited to the issue of contract formation and
whether the Parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
After the discovery period, HomeAdvisor may submit a renewed motion
to compel arbitration. If it chooses to do so, HomeAdvisor's
renewed motion will conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 4.01 pertaining to motions for
summary judgment, including the Court's requirement that the motion
be accompanied by a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs' Response and any Reply by HomeAdvisor
will conform to the requirements of Rule 56 and Local Rule 4.01.
If, by the deadline set forth, HomeAdvisor does not file a renewed
motion to compel arbitration, then the Court will schedule the
matter for summary trial in accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Arbitration Act.
Accordingly, Judge Clark denied HomeAdvisor's Motion to Compel
without prejudice. He denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Request for
Oral Argument.
They will have 90 days from the date of the Order to conduct
limited discovery pertaining to the issue of contract formation and
whether the Parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
The discovery will proceed in the following manner:
(a) The parties will make initial disclosures related to
contract formation and whether the Parties entered into
a valid arbitration agreement as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) no later than February 13, 2020.
(b) The limits of five depositions per side, 10
interrogatories per side, not including subparts, 10
requests for production of documents per side, and 20
requests for admissions per side will apply. Responses
to interrogatories and requests for production will be
due within 21 days of service.
(c) All discovery will be completed by no later than April
29, 2020.
(d) Discovery motions will be pursued in a diligent and
timely manner, but in no event filed later than
April 29, 2020. The counsel will refer to the
undersigned's Requirements regarding discovery motions,
which can be found on the Eastern District of Missouri's
website.
Any renewed motion to compel arbitration, or motion for declaratory
judgment that no valid arbitration agreement exists, will be filed
no later than May 13, 2020. Any such motion will conform to the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule
4.01 pertaining to motions for summary judgment, including the
Court's requirement that the motion be accompanied by a Statement
of Uncontroverted Material Facts. Any brief in opposition will be
filed within 21 days and will include a Response to Statement of
Material Facts in accordance with Local Rule 4.01(e). Any reply
brief will be filed within 14 days.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/zfRwHM from Leagle.com.
Marilyn Margulis, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus C. Dashtaki,
DASHTAKI LAW FIRM. LLC, Keith J. Keogh, KEOGH LAW, LTD. & Michael
Hilicki, KEOGH LAW, LTD.
Max Margulis, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus C. Dashtaki, DASHTAKI
LAW FIRM. LLC & Michael Hilicki, KEOGH LAW, LTD.
HomeAdvisors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul M. Croker --
pcroker@atllp.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.
HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Barber as Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENT BARBER, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Act. No. 1:19-cv-1043-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Judge
Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the case as a class action.
The Magistrate Judge entered on Jan. 10, 2020, a Recommendation to
which no timely objections have been filed. After an independent
review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation,
and for good cause, Judge Marks adopted the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.
Judge Marks denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a
class action. With the exception of the Lead Plaintiff, Brent
Barber, the remaining named Plaintiffs are terminated as parties to
the complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the
docket accordingly. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge
for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/PdJ0wX from Leagle.com.
Brent R. Barber, Plaintiff, pro se.
ILLINOIS: Class of Trans Women Prisoners in Monroe Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANIAH MONROE, MARILYN MELENDEZ, EBONY STAMPS, LYDIA
HELENA VISION, SORA KUYKENDALL, and SASHA REED, Plaintiffs, v.
STEVE MEEKS, MELVIN HINTON, and ROB JEFFREYS, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00156-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs, transgender women currently incarcerated in the
Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") facilities, bring the
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of
their constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs claim that IDOC fails
to provide constitutionally adequate medical treatment for inmates
seeking evaluation and treatment for gender dysphoria in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. They seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, asking the Court to compel the Defendants to develop and
implement a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious harm
that the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class suffer
due to the Defendants' inadequate evaluation and treatment of
gender dysphoria.
The Plaintiffs also have moved for the certification of a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). As defined
in the motion and memorandum in support of class certification, the
proposed class includes, all prisoners in the custody of IDOC who
have requested evaluation or treatment for gender dysphoria. The
Defendants opposed the motion for class certification in a response
filed on June 14, 2019.
Judge Rosenstengel finds that the Plaintiffs have met the
requirements of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy. She also finds that when members of a putative class
seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or
practices that are generally applicable to the class as a whole,
the requirements of Rule 23(b) are deemed satisfied. Although each
Plaintiff has included specific allegations regarding her
unconstitutional care, their main argument is that they have
suffered serious harm and are at risk of further harm as a result
of IDOC policies, procedures, and practices that deny evaluation
and medically necessary treatment of gender dysphoria.
Furthermore, they seek injunctive relief regarding the Defendants'
conduct and IDOC policies that would apply generally to the class.
Therefore, the Judge will grant class certification under Rule
23(b)(2).
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Rosenstengel granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. She certified a class
defined as all prisoners in the custody of IDOC who have requested
evaluation or treatment for gender dysphoria.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZFMyYI from Leagle.com.
Janiah Monroe, Marilyn Melendez, Lydia Helena Vision, Sora
Kuykendall & Sasha Reed, Plaintiffs, represented by John A. Knight
- jknight@aclu-il.org - Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.,
Austin B. Stephenson - austin.stephenson@kirkland.com - Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Brent P. Ray , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 N La Salle Dr,
Chicago, IL 60654-3406, pro hac vice, Camille E. Bennett-
cbennett@aclu−il.org - Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU,
Inc.,
Carolyn M. Wald - cwald@aclu-il.org - Roger Baldwin Foundation of
ACLU, Inc., Catherine L. Fitzpatrick -
catherine.fitzpatrick@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Erica
B.
Zolner - erica.zolner@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Ghirlandi Guidetti , Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., 180 N
Michigan Ave Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601-1287, Megan M. New -
megan.new@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Samantha G. Rose -
sam.rose@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sarah Jane Hunt ,
Kennedy Hunt P.C., 112 Front Street, Alton, IL 62002S, Sydney L.
Schneider - sydney.schneider@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Thomas E. Kennedy, III , Law Offices of Thomas E. Kennedy, III,
L.C., 303 State St., Alton, IL 62002 & Jordan M. Heinz -
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
Ebony Stamps, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Knight , Roger
Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Austin B. Stephenson , Kirkland
&
Ellis LLP, Brent P. Ray , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Carolyn M. Wald , Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.,
Catherine
L. Fitzpatrick , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Erica B. Zolner , Kirkland
&
Ellis LLP, Ghirlandi Guidetti , Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU,
Inc., Megan M. New , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Samantha G. Rose ,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sarah Jane Hunt , Kennedy Hunt P.C., Sydney
L. Schneider , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Thomas E. Kennedy, III , Law
Offices of Thomas E. Kennedy, III, L.C. & Jordan M. Heinz ,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
John Baldwin, Steve Meeks & Melvin Hinton, Defendants, represented
by Lisa A. Cook , Office of the Attorney General & Christopher L.
Higgerson , Illinois Attorney General's Office.
KAUFF'S INC: Tow Truck Drivers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yosbrey Conchado, David Devito, Antonio Sturgis and Ahmad Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Kauff's, Inc., Guardian Fleet Services, Inc. and
Francis Geoffrey Russell, individually, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-80344, (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate as Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's
Transportation Systems and Kauff's Towing and Transportation Dawson
where Plaintiffs worked as tow truck drivers. They claim to work in
excess of forty hours during one or more workweeks without overtime
premiums. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 544-8900
Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
By: s/Daniel R. Levine
E-Mail: drl@pbl-law.com
LAW SOLUTIONS: Bid to Withdraw Complaint Reference in Mikulin Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE MIKULIN, Plaintiff, v. LAW SOLUTIONS CHICAGO,
LLC; UPRIGHT LAW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-mc-01590-MHH (N.D.
Ala.), Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division, denied Ms.
Mikulin's motion to withdraw the reference with respect to her
complaint against the Defendants.
Diane Mikulin filed her complaint against the Defendants as an
adversary proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Alabama as part of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. She
alleges, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class, that the the
Defendants violated 11 U.S.C. Section 526. Ms. Mikulin would like
to litigate her Section 526 claims against the Defendants in the
district court rather than in the bankruptcy court.
The District Court referred Ms. Mikulin's bankruptcy proceeding to
the Bankruptcy Court in the district. Ms. Mikulin asks the Court
to withdraw the reference with respect to her complaint against the
Defendants because, she argues, resolution of the adversary matter
will require substantial and material consideration of issues of
law and fact outside the Bankruptcy Code, such as the application
of extra-territorial class action principles under Rule 23.
After a district court refers a bankruptcy case to a bankruptcy
court, 28 U.S.C. Section 157(d) governs requests to withdraw the
reference. The first sentence of Section 157(d) contemplates
permissive withdrawal; the second sentence addresses mandatory
withdrawal.
Judge Haikala finds that the mandatory withdrawal language in 28
U.S.C. Section 157(d) does not apply in the Mikulin case. Ms.
Mikulin alleges that the Defendants violated 11 U.S.C. Section
526(a)(4). A provision of the Bankruptcy Code, Section 526 governs
restrictions on debt relief agencies. Because this Bankruptcy Code
provision will govern the merits of Ms. Mikulin's claim against the
Defendants, the merits of her claim will not require analysis of
"other laws of the United States."
Ms. Mikulin argues that withdrawal is mandatory because her request
for class treatment of her Section 526 claim raises a substantial
question of federal law, namely the extent to which a bankruptcy
court may certify a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 23 is not part of title 11, so Rule 23
may qualify as "other law of the United States," but Rule 23 does
not regulate] organizations or activities affecting interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 157(d). Rule 23 is a
federal procedural rule designed to help parties and courts manage
litigation.
Ms. Mikulin argues that permissive withdrawal would advance the
uniformity of bankruptcy proceedings and promote the efficient use
of the Parties' and the Court's resources by avoiding future
appeals back to the Court concerning Ms. Mikulin's request for
certification of a nationwide class.
Judge Haikala holds that the Bankruptcy Court is familiar with the
parties in the adversary proceeding, and the Bankruptcy Court is
well-situated to handle Ms. Mikulin's Section 526 claim
efficiently. Thus, judicial economy supports continued referral to
the Bankruptcy Court.
Moreover, the cases that Ms. Mikulin cites in favor of her motion
to withdraw the reference are cases in which the bankruptcy courts
decided the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. As in
those cases, if a party is dissatisfied with the Bankruptcy Court's
decision on the class certification issue in the instant case, the
party may request an interlocutory appeal, and the Court may decide
whether to hear the issue interlocutorily on the record developed
in the bankruptcy court. Because there may or may not be an
appeal, and because the Court may or may not decide that an
interlocutory appeal is warranted if a party requests such an
appeal, withdrawal of the reference will not necessarily increase
efficiency with respect to the class certification/subject matter
jurisdiction issue.
For the reasons stated, Judge Haikala denied Ms. Mikulin's motion
to withdraw the reference.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/IZJo3I from
Leagle.com.
Diane Marie Mikulin, Plaintiff, represented by Harry P. Long, LAW
OFFICES OF HARRY P. LONG, LLC, J. Bradley Ponder --
info@montgomeryponder.com -- MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC & Lucas C.
Montgomery, MONTGOMERY PONDER LLC.
Law Solutions Chicago LLC, Defendant, represented by Mariellen
Morrison, MARI MORRISON, ATTORNEY AT LAW.
Upright Law LLC, Defendant, represented by Mariellen Morrison, MARI
MORRISON, ATTORNEY AT LAW & David M. Menditto, DEIGHAN LAW LLC.
LEIF JOHNSON: Faces Smith Class Suit in Texas District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leif Johnson Ford,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Dennis N. Smith, Jr.,
Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated v. Leif
Johnson Ford, Inc.; My Lead Guys, LLC; and Steven Hill, Case No.
20-DCV-272225 (Tex. Dist., Fort Bend Cty., March 10, 2020).
Leif Johnson is a used car dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 E 9th St.
Houston, TX 77007-1722
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: aet@caddellchapman.com
LHC GROUP: Awaits Appeal From Dismissal of Rosenblatt Case
----------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting
the lead plaintiff in the consolidated Rosenblatt Class Action to
appeal the court's dismissal of the case.
On April 1, 2018, the Company completed the Merger with Almost
Family. At the effective time of the Merger on April 1, 2018, each
outstanding share of common stock of Almost Family, other than
certain canceled shares, was converted into the right to receive
0.9150 shares of the Company's common stock and cash in lieu of any
fractional shares of any Company common stock that Almost Family
shareholders would otherwise have been entitled to receive.
On January 18, 2018, Jordan Rosenblatt, a purported shareholder of
Almost Family filed a complaint for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled Rosenblatt v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-40-TBR (the "Rosenblatt Action").
The Rosenblatt Action was filed against the Company, Almost Family,
Almost Family's board of directors, and Merger Sub, Inc. The
complaint in the Rosenblatt Action asserts, among other things,
that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on December 21, 2017
in connection with the Merger contained false and misleading
statements with respect to the Merger. The Rosenblatt Action seeks,
among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
In addition to the Rosenblatt Action, two additional complaints
were filed against Almost Family in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware ("the Delaware Actions")
alleging similar violations as the Rosenblatt Action. These
Delaware Actions also sought, among other things, an injunction to
enjoin both the vote of the Almost Family stockholders with respect
to the Merger and the closing of the Merger, monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Almost Family.
On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions moved for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger of Almost Family and
Merger Sub. Then, on March 2, 2018 the Delaware Actions were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky. Shortly thereafter, on March 12, 2018, Almost
Family, the Company, and Merger Sub opposed the plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction, and the court heard oral argument on
the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on March 19,
2018. On March 22, 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.
The next day, on March 23, 2018, one of the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions moved to consolidate the Delaware Actions with the
Rosenblatt Action and for the appointment of a lead plaintiff. On
December 19, the Court granted the motion to consolidate, appointed
Leonard Stein, a purported Almost Family shareholder, as the Lead
Plaintiff, and approved Stein's selection of Lead Counsel.
On February 1, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The
Consolidated Complaint asserts claims against Almost Family, the
Company and Almost Family's board of directors for violations of
Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the dissemination
of the Company's and Almost Family's Proxy Statement concerning the
Merger, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims and claims for
violations of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Almost Family's
former board of directors.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 12, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint and filed a motion to strike an affidavit attached to the
Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiff opposed the Company's
motions on May 28, 2019, and the Company submitted reply briefs in
support of its motions on June 19, 2019.
On February 11, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and the Company's motion to strike and dismissed Lead
Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice and state law claims
without prejudice. The deadline for Lead Plaintiff to appeal the
court's dismissal of his claims is March 12, 2020.
We believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are entirely
without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously.
LHC Group, Inc., a health care provider, specializes in the
post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries
in the United States. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Lafayette, Louisiana.
MDL 2895: MSP Recovery v. Amgen Inc. Over Sensipar Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES
LLC v. AMGEN INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.;
and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-20549, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington) on March 9, 2020.
The District of Delaware Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00345-LPS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Leonard P. Stark.
The MSP Case is being consolidated with MDL 2895, IN RE: SENSIPAR
(CINACALCET HYDROCHLORIDE TABLETS) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. The lead case is Case
No. 1:19-md-02895-LPS.
The actions share factual issues arising from allegations of
anticompetitive conduct designed to restrain competition in the
market for Amgen's highly successful Sensipar drug and its generic
equivalents. The alleged anticompetitive conduct appears
principally to implicate a January 2019 agreement between Amgen and
Teva, pursuant to which Teva purportedly agreed to stop selling its
generic version of Sensipar.
In its July 31, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions of fact that centralization in
the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
David L. Ddaponte, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
jmestre@riveromestre.com
cwhorton@riveromestre.com
ddaponte@riveromestre.com
npuentes@riveromestre.com
MGP INGREDIENTS: Corbezzolo Hits Share Drop from Unsold Booze
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Corbezzolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., Augustus C. Griffin
and Brandon M. Gall, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02090, (D. Kan.,
February 28, 2020), seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
MGP produces premium distilled spirits and specialty wheat protein
and starch food ingredients. In 2015, MGP started storing
significant amounts of barreled distillate that it could later sell
as aged whiskey. It was expected to commence selling this aged
whiskey in 2019. On February 26, 2020, MGP announced that it had
fallen significantly short due to its failure to sell aged whiskey
during the fourth quarter of 2019. Augustus C. Griffin, MGP CEO,
revealed that aged whiskey sales had declined year over year and
that the company had failed to secure the contracts it had
previously highlighted to investors.
On this news, the price of MGP stock declined from a close of
$31.80 per share on February 25, 2020 to a close of $28.42 per
share on February 26, 2020. This represented a 67% price decline
from a high of $88.06 per share. Corbezzolo owns MGP common stock.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Rachel E. Schwartz, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
schwartz@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Fax: (415) 288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Fax: (312) 674-4676
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lantry Files FDCPA Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Desirae Lantry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03018
(C.D. Cal., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management is a debt collection agency that helps
consumers pay off overdue debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M 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
NATIONAL LUMBER: Misclassifies Framing Workers, Torres Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDY YOVANY TORRES, individually And on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. NATIONAL LUMBER COMPANY, Case No. 20-669
(Mass. Super., March 9, 2020), challenges the Defendant's unlawful
misclassification of its Massachusetts residential and commercial
framing workers as independent contractors, in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws.
As a result of the misclassification, the Plaintiff and group of
employees similarly situated have not paid in full for all hours
they have worked, have worked far in excess of 40 hours per week
without receiving overtime as required by law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and others were hired by NLC to work as framing crew,
which provides framing services on several projects including
projects in Lowell and Brighton, Massachusetts.
NLC is in the business of providing framing labor, services and
materials to its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James W. Simpson Jr., Esq.
JAMES W SIMPSON JR LAW OFFICE
100 Concord St., No. 3B
Framingham, MA 01702
Telephone: 508 872 0002
NCB MANAGEMENT: Laurent Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services Inc. The case is styled as Natasha Saint Laurent,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NCB Management Services Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01621 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
NCB Management Services Inc. provides business process outsourcing
(BPO) services. The Company offers accounts receivable, call center
management, and information technology sourcing services. NCB
Management Services serves clients in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 741-4799
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Phillips Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from the
ruling in the class action suit initiated by Marta and Jerry
Phillips and others against the company remains pending.
On September 21, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by
Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against NCL Corporation Ltd. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida relating to the marketing and sales of our Booksafe Travel
Protection Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent an alleged
class of passengers who purchased Booksafe Travel Protection Plans.
The complaint alleged that the Company concealed that it received
proceeds on the sale of the travel insurance portion of the plan.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, fees and
costs.
The Company moved to invoke the arbitration clause of the ticket
contract to move the case out of Federal Court. On May 29, 2019,
the Court granted the motion and compelled the plaintiffs to submit
their claims to arbitration on an individual basis, dismissing the
claims before the Court with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an
appeal on October 28, 2019.
NCL said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim and
that any liability which may arise as a result of this action will
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.
NEW ERA ASSET: Tanenbaum Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Era Asset
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Benjamin Tanenbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. New Era Asset Management, LLC and Brightwater Capital,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00382 (W.D.N.Y., March 31,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
New Era Asset Management, LLC is a full-service Billing and
Accounts Receivable company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 741-4799
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Douglas Hits Share Drop from Overrated Forecast
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., Frank
J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-21107,
(S.D. Fla., March 12, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Norwegian is a global cruise company which operates the Norwegian
Cruise Line, Oceania Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven
Seas Cruises brands. Its stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "NCLH."
In December of 2019, the spread of COVID-19 has had a significant
impact on the cruise industry, with reports of canceled trips and
half-empty ships. Douglas claims that Norwegian's financial results
for the quarter and full year ended December 31, 2019 discussed
positive outlooks for the company in spite of the COVID-19
outbreak.
Consequently, Norwegian's shares fell $5.47 per share or
approximately 26.7% to close at $15.03 per share on March 11, 2020.
Douglas owns Norwegian stock. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10116
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
NORWICH, CT: Connecticut District Grants Bids to Dismiss Adams Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBIE L. ADAMS, III, Plaintiff, v. KARLENE M. DEAL,
JOHN L. SALOMONE, BROWN JACOBSON PC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-994
(KAD) (D. Conn.), Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court
for the Connecticut granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff Adams, proceeding pro se, filed the action on June 3,
2019 against Defendants Deal, the tax collector for the City of
Norwich, Salomone, the city manager for the City of Norwich, and
the law firm of Brown Jacobson, in the Superior Court for the
judicial district of New London. Adams alleges violations of his
right to due process and equal protection of the law and alleges
that the Defendants' actions have subjected him to cruel and
unusual punishment.
On June 25, 2019, Defendants Deal and Salomone removed the action
to the Connecticuit District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1441(a) and 1331 with the consent of Brown Jacobson. On Nov. 22,
2019, Deal and Salomone moved to dismiss Adams's complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), principally on the
grounds that the Tax Injunction Act precludes the Court's exercise
of subject matter jurisdiction. Adams filed an opposition to the
motion on Dec. 23, 2019. Brown Jacobson thereafter filed a motion
to dismiss in which it joins in and adopts the motion to dismiss
filed by Deal and Salomone.
In his complaint, Adams alleges that he went to Norwich City Hall
in March 2019 to pay his motor vehicle taxes and was informed that
he owed $2,404.14, as well as an additional charge of $258.55 due
to his account having been placed in collections. Adams alleges
that he subsequently mailed a check for $2,404.14, which was
"accepted" and applied to his taxes, except for an amount that was
paid to a debt collector.
According to Adams, the tax collector has no authority to collect
monies for anything but taxes. He alleges that he has waited 60
days for Salomone or Brown Jacobson to inform Deal of the debt
collection laws and correct this error but they have not done so.
In his request for relief, Adams seeks a transfer of his case to
federal court, an order requiring Deal to have monies received for
taxes applied to taxes, as is her only authority, and compensatory
damages from Salomone and Brown Jacobson for his pain and
suffering.
Judge Dooley finds that pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act,
district courts will not enjoin, suspend or restrain the
assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a
plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such
State. The Act applies not only to state taxes but also to local
municipal taxes.
Whether the Tax Injunction Act or related principles of comity
serve as a bar to an action in federal court depends on the answers
to two questions. First, whether the Plaintiff's action amounts to
a challenge to the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under
state or local law. Second, whether there is an effective remedy
that the Plaintiff can pursue in the state courts. With respect to
the claims asserted in the case, the Judge answers both questions
in the affirmative.
First, although the Plaintiff invokes the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution as well as the Eighth Amendment prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment, basing a complaint upon alleged
violation of civil rights or of the Federal Constitution will not
avoid the prohibition contained in Section 1341. As for whether
Connecticut law affords Adams an adequate remedy, the state allows
any person claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors
of a town to appeal therefrom to the board of assessment appeals.
In his opposition to the motion, Adams does not refute these
principles or address the Tax Injunction Act. Instead, Adams
argues that by allowing the Defendants to remove his state court
action to federal court, the Court agreed they have jurisdiction.
The Judge holds that Adams misapprehends the removal process.
Removal is an act initiated by a civil defendant, not the Court.
Removal is not therefore a determination by the Court that it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the matter removed. Once a case
is removed, however, subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by
the parties or sua sponte by the Court. Indeed, a federal court
has an independent obligation to examine its subject-matter
jurisdiction at all successive stages of litigation, and the Court
is therefore permitted to consider the defense of lack of subject
matter jurisdiction at any time.
Adams alternatively asserts that if the Court determines that it
lacks jurisdiction, a remand back to the Superior Court would be in
order, not a dismissal. Adams is correct. The District Court
holds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), if at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction in a case removed from state court, the
case will be remanded. While the Defendants proffer alternate
reasons why the District Court should dismiss the complaint, the
Court is without authority to consider these arguments, having
concluded that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
action.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Dooley granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for
the judicial district of New London.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Memorandum
of Decision is available at https://is.gd/bbcOeO from Leagle.com.
Bobbie L. Adams, III., Plaintiff, pro se.
Karlene M. Deal, Tax Collector & John L. Salomone, City Manager,
Defendants, represented by Kaitlin Kontyko -- kkontyko@hl-law.com
-- Howd & Ludorf, LLC & Thomas R. Gerarde -- tgerarde@hl-law.com --
Howd & Ludorf.
Brown Jacobson PC, Law Firm, Defendant, represented by Lloyd L.
Langhammer -- langhammerlaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Lloyd L.
Langhammer, LLC.
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Macius Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oliphant Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Macius, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oliphant Financial,
LLC and Accelerated Inventory Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00752 (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Oliphant Financial, LLC (OFL) is a debt purchaser and third-party
collection agency based in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Fisher May Amend Complaint Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint.
The Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating the action in the
Tulare County Superior Court on Nov. 5, 2018. The complaint
alleges wage and hour violations under California law against
Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class of all
other persons employed directly by the Defendant who were not paid
wages pursuant to California law prior and subsequent to the date
the action was filed. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges class
claims for meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, and
unfair business practices.
On Dec. 12, 2018, the Defendant filed its answer in Tulare Superior
Court, and on Dec. 13, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to
federal court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act.
On March 6, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Scheduling Report.
In the report, the Plaintiff stated that he has yet to amend the
complaint to add PAGA allegations but plans to do so subject to the
Defendant's agreement to allow the Plaintiff leave to file their
First Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiff anticipates amending the
complaint to add a claim under the Private Attorney General's Act,
now that the administrative prerequisites have been met. The
Plaintiff will endeavor to do so by stipulation.
The Court held a scheduling conference on March 14, 2019, and on
March 21, 2019, the Court issued its Class Action Scheduling
Conference Order. It did not set a deadline for amendment to the
parties' pleadings, noting only that the filing of motions or
stipulations seeking leave to amend the pleadings does not imply
good cause to modify the existing schedule, and that any request
for amendment under Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a) must not be: (1)
prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay;
(3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile.
On Nov. 8, 2019, the parties filed a mid-discovery scheduling
report in which the parties proposed a revised discovery schedule
for the case. The report noted that the Plaintiff has yet to amend
the complaint to add PAGA allegations but plans to do so. The
Defendant will not stipulate to an amendment at this time, but
anticipates the issue arising as part of mediation, most likely in
January 2020.
Mediation did not occur in January 2020, and on Jan. 23, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint seeking to add PAGA
claims. The Defendant opposes the motion, contending (1) amendment
would cause undue prejudice to the Defendant, (2) amendment would
be futile because the PAGA claim is barred by the statute of
limitations, and (3) leave to amend should be denied based on undue
delay and as a bad faith attempt to increase the cost of
litigation.
Magistrate Judge Grosjean finds that the Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that it will be unduly prejudiced by the proposed
amendment to add a PAGA claim. During the Feb. 28, 2020, hearing,
the Defendant also claimed that the "prejudice is extreme" because
there is a completely different standard that applies to a PAGA
claim, as opposed to the claims in the initial complaint; that
Defendant would have taken a different approach in the case had
there been a PAGA claim; and that the scope and manner of discovery
would have been different. However, the Defendant also admitted
during the hearing that it has not yet provided any documents or
other production in response to the Plaintiff's discovery requests
and has not yet itself sought any discovery from the Plaintiff.
Moreover, the Defendant was on notice, since at least March 6,
2019, that the Plaintiff intended to amend the complaint to add a
PAGA claim.
The Magistrate Judge finds that the original complaint and the
proposed amended complaint share a common core of operative facts
so that the Defendant had fair notice of the conduct called into
question. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to add the PAGA
claim relates back to the original complaint and amendment would
not be futile.
The Magistrate Judge is concerned about this long delay in seeking
to amend the complaint to add a PAGA claim. However, she does not
find the delay sufficient, by itself, to justify denying the
Plaintiff's motion to amend and, further, does not find that the
delay was the result of bad faith on the part of the Plaintiff.
As discussed during the Feb. 28, 2020, status conference, the Class
Action Scheduling Conference Order is modified as follows:
i. Deadline/Cutoff Date Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosure
deadline - April 1, 2020
ii. Non-expert discovery cutoff - Aug. 17, 2020
iii. Expert witness disclosure deadline - May 15, 2020
iv. Rebuttal expert witness disclosure deadline - June 14,
2020
v. Expert discovery cutoff - Sept. 16, 2020
vi. Motion for class certification deadline - Oct. 30, 2020
For the reasons she set forth, Magistrate Judge Grosjean granted
the Plaintiff's motion to amend. The Plaintiff will file his First
Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of the Order. The
Class Action Scheduling Conference Order is modified as set forth.
A telephonic status conference is set for June 22, 2020, at 10:00
a.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. To participate
telephonically, each party is directed to use the following dial-in
number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. The parties
are directed to file a joint status report one full week prior to
the conference and email a copy of same, in Word format, to
epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov for the Judge's review.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xDew7M from Leagle.com.
Todd Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
Osmose Utilities Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
David Langberg, Fisher & Phillips LLP, Natalie B. Fujikawa, Fisher
& Phillips, LLP & James Charles Fessenden --
jfessenden@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.
PAM TRANSPORT: Court Rules on Defendants' Motions in Browne Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BROWNE, ANTONIO CALDWELL, and LUCRETIA HALL, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., et al. Defendants, Case No. 5:16-CV-5366
(W.D. Ark.), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, ruled on several motions of the
Defendants. Specifically, the Court (i) deferred the Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on FLSA Claims Based on Statute
of Limitations; (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion to Modify
Certification Order of the Rule 23 Class; (iii) denied the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify FLSA and Rule 23 Classes; (iv)
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Opt-Ins for Failing to
Appear at Deposition or Participate in Discovery; and (iv) granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' Supplemental Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Claims of Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs Based
on Judicial Estoppe.
The Defendants seek summary judgment against the Opt-In Plaintiffs
whose claims are time-barred. In their initial motion, the
Defendants calculated the statute of limitations from date of
termination. The Plaintiffs pointed out in their Response that
pursuant to Department of Labor ("DOL") regulations, violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") accrue on pay day. Then in
their Reply, the Defendants calculated the statute of limitations
from the last day of the workweek in which driver was terminated.
The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Sur-reply in which they
argued that this still was not the right date and the list of
time-barred the Plaintiffs submitted by the Defendants' expert was
still not accurate. Finally, the Defendants filed a Supplemental
Declaration by their expert, Dr. Thompson, naming the individuals
from their prior list who should not be excluded if the statute of
limitations is calculated from the pay day for the final workweek
rather than the last day of the final workweek.
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that some individuals' claims are
time-barred, but they argue that since their damages calculations
do not assign any damages to those individuals, there is no reason
for them to be dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that
since the Defendants did not use the correct date to calculate the
statute of limitations, they did not meet their burden and the
Court should therefore deny their motion.
A plaintiff must have damages to have a claim. Individuals who are
not entitled to damages because of the statute of limitations
should be dismissed. However, since the damages calculations do
not include claims outside the statute of limitations, there is no
prejudice in waiting to dismiss any Opt-In Plaintiffs until the
parties can make an accurate determination as to whose claims are
truly barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, the Court
deferred the Defendants' Motion, and the parties are directed to
confer and make a good faith effort to determine where there is a
factual disagreement as to the specific Opt-In Plaintiffs who are
time-barred. The parties should then provide a status report to
the Court focused on those remaining disagreements no later than
Jan. 31, 2020.
The Defendants seek modification of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order of Jan. 25, 2019 certifying the Rule 23 class. They ask
the Court to close the class as of Sept. 25, 2018, because on the
following day, PAM began including a class and collective action
waiver in its employment contracts. The Defendants argue that the
Supreme Court's holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, makes class
and collective action waivers enforceable in both arbitration
agreements and other contracts. The Plaintiffs emphasize that the
Defendants did not disclose the waiver until the Motion was filed
on Nov. 4, 2019, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26.
The Court finds that granting the Motion would be a material
alteration of the class definition. While modifications are common
and appropriate to make the disputed issues conform to the evidence
after discovery, that is not what the Defendants seek. PAM's new
employment contract containing the class and collective action
waiver should have been provided to the Plaintiffs in September
2018 when there was still a reasonable opportunity for the
Plaintiffs to engage in discovery regarding the waiver. While he
will not make an explicit finding that the Defendants' failure to
disclose the waiver was strategic, the Court can see no excuse for
it. Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendants' disclosure of
the class and collective action waiver in November 2019 is untimely
and a discovery violation, and denied the Defendants' Motion.
With the Motion to Decertify, the Defendants seek decertification
of both the FLSA and Rule 23 classes. They seek decertification of
the FLSA class based on a DOL Opinion Letter published July 22,
2019. They also seek decertification of the Rule 23 class pursuant
to a September 20, 2019 Opinion Letter from the Arkansas Department
of Labor ("ADOL"). Finally, the Defendants argue that discovery
has brought to light additional evidence that should cause the
Court to revise its finding as to the predominance of common
questions of law or fact over individual questions in the Rule 23
class.
The Court finds that the class-wide questions of law or fact
continue to predominate over questions affecting only individual
members, and decertification is not appropriate. The Court
therefore denied the Defendants' Motion to Decertify as to both the
FLSA and Rule 23 classes.
In their initial brief on the Motion to Dismiss Opt-Ins, the
Defendants argued that three categories of the Plaintiffs should be
dismissed as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(b): the Plaintiffs who
affirmatively refused to be deposed; those who never responded to
the request to schedule a deposition; and those who did not appear
for noticed depositions without an excuse. In response, the
Plaintiffs emphasized that the Court's order required them to
provide 30 deponents and they complied.
The Court finds that no sanction is appropriate for the Opt-In
Plaintiffs whose depositions were never scheduled because there is
no evidence of material prejudice to the Defendant. The Defendant
was limited to 30 depositions and was permitted to choose which
Opt-Ins to depose. In the Court's telephone conference with the
parties regarding depositions on July 23, 2018, however, it made
clear that the Defendants were to provide the Plaintiffs with lists
of more than 30 names or even categories of the Opt-In Plaintiffs
from which to draw as they attempted to schedule these depositions
in a timely manner. The Defendants were able to depose 30 Opt-In
Plaintiffs from these lists by the discovery deadline and have not
provided any evidence of material prejudice. Therefore, the Judge
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but required the
Plaintiffs who did not appear for noticed depositions to show cause
and impose sanctions if appropriate, as described.
The Defendants initially filed for summary judgment on the claims
of Named Plaintiff Antonio Caldwell and 48 Opt-In Plaintiffs based
on judicial estoppel. They asked the Court to find the Plaintiffs
who had filed for bankruptcy without disclosing their participation
in the litigation estopped.
The Court opines that two of the individuals listed by the
Defendants actually had their bankruptcies dismissed without
discharge. These individuals did not have any debt discharged
without payment during their bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore,
under the reasoning of the Court's prior order on the matter,
judicial estoppel is not appropriately applied to Michael Hawkins
or Tammy Thompson. The Court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion. It is granted as to Bradley Creech, Jason
DeGroot, Rodney Eddings, Richard Gifford, Leslie Griggs, Jason
Gunter, and Steven Redmond, who are estopped and dismissed from the
suit. It is denied as to Michael Hawkins and Tammy Thompson.
For the reasons given, the Court deferred the Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on FLSA Claims Based on Statute of
Limitations, and directed the parties to provide a status report to
the Court as to which Opt-In Plaintiffs, if any, there is a dispute
factual dispute whether their FLSA claims are barred by the statute
of limitations no later than Jan. 31, 2020. The Court denied the
Defendants' (i) Motion to Modify Certification Order of the Rule 23
Class, (ii) Motion to Decertify FLSA and Rule 23 Classes, and (iii)
Motion to Dismiss Opt-Ins for Failing to Appear at Deposition or
Participate in Discovery. The Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to
confirm by Jan. 31, 2020 the names of those Opt-In Plaintiffs who
did not appear for scheduled and noticed depositions so that the
Court may issue a Show Cause Order. The Court granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Claims of Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs Based on
Judicial Estoppel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/pNLLFu from Leagle.com.
David Browne, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Antonio Caldwell, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated & Lucretia Hall, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S.
Boyette -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro
hac
vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swidler LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice &
Travis Martindale-Jarvis -- tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swudler LLC, pro hac vice.
PAM Transport Inc, Defendant, represented by Amber Prince --
aprince@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, Martin D. Holmes --
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Peter Fredrick Klett -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Robert L. Jones, III -- bjones@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, K. Scott Hamilton -- khamilton@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com
--
Conner & Winters, LLP.
John Does, Defendant, represented by Martin D. Holmes , Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter
Fredrick Klett, Dickinson Wright PLLC & K. Scott Hamilton,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.
PAYPAL CREDIT: Dermer Disputes Interest on Cancelled Purchase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Dermer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paypal Credit, Synchrony Bank and Does 1
through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02378, (C.D. Cal.,
March 12, 2020), seeks damages brought by breach of contract and
for violation of the Truth In Lending Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and California Business and Professions
Code.
Dermer obtained a credit account from PayPal Credit and Synchrony
Bank where he was promised that purchases made with said credit
account would be classified as a "promotional purchase" and would
not be charged any interest if the purchases were paid in full
within six months. In June 2019, Dermer was charged interests and
penalties for a purchase that was returned and filed the necessary
request documentation for said return. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
The Law Offices of Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite 212,
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel (323) 937-0400
Fax (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
PLANTRONICS INC: $557K Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Shin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHIL SHIN, Plaintiff, v. PLANTRONICS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-05626-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M.
Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part the Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and the class representative's service award.
In the consumer class action, Plaintiff Shin represented a class of
headphone buyers against the Defendant, alleging that Plantronics's
BackBeat FIT wireless headphones did not work as advertised. After
Plantronics moved to dismiss, the parties reached a settlement. In
a separate order, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Now, the Court addresses the Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees and the class representative's service award.
The Class Counsel seek $650,000, inclusive of $42,210.24 in costs.
The Class Counsel estimates their lodestar at $743,099. The Class
Counsel calculated their lodestar by multiplying the number of
hours expended in the litigation -- 1,427.9 hours -- with hourly
rates for attorneys and staff across four firms ranging from $125
for legal assistants to $850 for senior attorneys. The requested
award therefore represents a negative lodestar of approximately
0.8.
Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that the requested hourly rates are
reasonable and reflect the Class Counsel's experience. The rates
are also well within rates approved by other courts in the
district. However, the Judge is not persuaded by the number of
hours purportedly expended by the Class Counsel. Although the
Class Counsel certainly engaged in informal discovery and extensive
preparations for settlement, no formal discovery was taken and
there was almost no adversarial motion practice over the course of
the litigation. The Judge is not convinced that the Class
Counsel's use of 1,427.9 hours across four law firms, 16 attorneys,
and eight supporting staff represents a reasonable expenditure of
time. Accordingly, the Judge reduces all hours by 30% as detailed
in the Order.
Judge Cousins further finds that a lodestar multiplier is not
warranted. The case is not one of the "rare" and "exceptional"
cases that warrant a multiplier. While the results achieved for
the class were significant, the issues in the case are not novel or
complex. Likewise, given the early settlement, the merits of the
class' claims had not yet been tested. Thus, the Judge adjusts the
Class Counsel's lodestar to $515,285.50 and declines to apply a
multiplier.
Including the Class Counsel's request for $42,210.24 in litigation
expenses, the Judge awards the Class Counsel a total of $557,495.74
in attorneys' fees and costs.
Shin requests a service award of $5,000. He actively participated
in the case and the Judge agrees that his participation merits a
service award. The Judge finds that Shin's requested award $5,000
is reasonable and appropriate compensation for the work and risk
undertaken by spearheading the litigation as class representatives.
In sum, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted in part Shin's motion for
attorneys' fees. The Class Counsel is awarded $557,495.74 in fees
and costs. Shin is also awarded a service award of $5,000.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/6XMWpb from Leagle.com.
Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Scott Kravitz –
kravitz@sfms.com
-- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah –
jshah@sfms.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, pro hac vice, Justin Charles Walker --
jwalker@msdlegal,com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Paul
Michael DeMarco -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Markovits Stock
DeMarco, pro hac vice, Terence Richard Coates --
tcoates@msdlegal.com Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, pro hac
vice, Todd Benjamin Naylor -- tnaylor@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, pro hac vice & Wilbert Benjamin Markovits --
bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC, pro hac
vice.
Plantronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Keith Cottriel
-- dcottriel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Dayme Sanchez --
daymesanchez@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.
POLLYS PIES: Sutander ADA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Hadyanto Sutander, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pollys Pies, Inc.,
Case No. 20STCV04129, was removed from the California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles) on March 10, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02320-CJC-JC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney.
The suit demands $75,000 in damages alleging violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Polly's Pies is a Southern California restaurant and bakery
specializing in high-quality food made from scratch.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 534-2590
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Hayley Singer Grunvald, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2006
Telephone: (858) 720-8900
Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
E-mail: hgrunvald@sheppardmullin.com
POSTMATES INC: Faces Cobb TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE COBB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. POSTMATES INC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01066-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 9,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending placing telemarketing calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members never consented to receive these calls. Because automated
dialing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or
even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other
persons, who received illegal robocalls from or on behalf of the
Defendant.
Postmates offers food, beverage and grocery delivery services to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven H. Koval, Esq.
3575 Piedmont Road
Building 15, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 513-6651
Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
E-mail: shkoval@aol.com
RAYMOND WEDLAKE: Faces Alvarez Suit in South Carolina Circuit Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAYMOND A. WEDLAKE.
The case is captioned as ADA ALVAREZ, BEVERLY TAYLOR, and MARVIN
TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. RAYMOND
A. WEDLAKE, Case No. 2020CP2301458 (S.C. Cir., Greenville Cty.,
March 9, 2020).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beau Bagnal Brogdon, Esq.
1000 E. North Street, Ste. 200
Greenville, SC 29601
- and -
Emily O'Brian, Esq.
Greenville, SC
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero
v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.
On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.
This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's
Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc., et
al.; Case No RIC1804127).
Ruth's said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter,
including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonable
estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou,
LLP. The case is styled as Yaakov Raksin, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip &
Stylianou, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01660 (E.D.N.Y., April
1, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Selip & Stylianou is a licensed debt collection law firm that has
both attorneys and debt collectors on their staff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
SMITH & NEPHEW: Faces Johnson FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA JOHNSON and ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES v. SMITH &
NEPHEW, INC. d/b/a SMITH & NEPHEW and d/b/a SMITH & NEPHEW, PLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02176-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn., March 10, 2020),
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks redress for unpaid wages and overtime pay due
to her in her capacity as employee of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's distribution center in
Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee.
Smith & Nephew is a British multinational medical equipment
manufacturing company headquartered in Watford, United
Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. King, Jr., Esq.
Eric E. Lindquester, Esq.
ESKINS KING & MARNEY, PC
200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 1510
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901)578-6902
E-mail: jking@eskinsking.com
elindquester@eskinsking.com
SOKO GLAM: New York Southern District Dismisses Tatum-Rios ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, LYNETTE
TATUM-RIOS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOKO GLAM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-CV-7990-LTS-SDA (S.D. N.Y.), with prejudice as to the Named
Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs and
without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration
of the action to the calendar of the Judge if the settlement is not
achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order.
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. If a party
wishes to reopen this matter or extend the time within which it may
be settled, the party must make a letter application before the
30-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/p2Mw8M from Leagle.com.
Lynette Tatum-Rios, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Brian Lipsky
-- doug@lipskylowe.com -- Lipsky Lowe LLP.
Soko Glam, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Winston Fournier
-- cfournier@chjllp.com -- Curley, Hurtgen & Johnsrud LLP & Andrew
Herman -- aherman@chjllp.com -- Curley, Hurtgen & Johnsrud LLP.
SONY INTERACTIVE: Crawford Hits Loose Gaming Payment System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01732, (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2020), seeks
declaratory, equitable and monetary relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, California's contract laws, Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Business and Professions Code and/or for unjust enrichment.
Sony Interactive Entertainment is into the manufacture, marketing
and sale of gaming consoles, including software applications that
users download on their mobile computing devices. Crawford claims
that her minor child downloaded a supposedly free application from
Sony and then incurred charges for game-related voidable purchases
that her child made, without her knowledge or permission claiming
Sony's loose payment facility allowed children to use their
parents' credit cards without permission or authorization. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith Altman, Esq.
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
Tel: (516)456-5885
Email: kaltman@excololaw.com
STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Gracius Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Marie C Gracius,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02678 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. is a Law firm in New York City,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
STRATEGIC SECURITY: Security Guards Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Castillo and Aaron Cantu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Strategic Security Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00889 (S.D. Tex., March 11, 2020), seeks
unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs of Court under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.
Strategic Security Corp. is a security agency who hired Cynthia
Castillo and Aaron Cantu as security guards. Plaintiffs claim that
they work more than 40 hours per week usually in 12 hours shifts
without overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77018
Tel: (713) 868-3388
Fax: (713) 683-9940
Email: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
SUNSHINE BEHAVIORAL: Fuentes Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Hector Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunshine Behavioral Health Group LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00487, (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs
together with other relief resulting from negligence, breach of
express and implied contract, unjust enrichment and for violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Records Act.
Defendant operates luxury drug and alcohol addiction rehabilitation
facilities in California, Colorado and Texas. On September 4, 2019,
it suffered a data breach resulting in the exposure and
exfiltration of sensitive personal and medical information of
approximately 3,500 patients. Fuentes was one of its patients from
January 17, 2019 to February 17, 2019.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telefax: (918) 588-3400
Email: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, SBN 274399
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01143 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Synergetic Communication, Inc. is a professional collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY: Thomas Sues Over Gender/Race Wage Gap
----------------------------------------------------------
Estate of Shirley Taylor Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tallahatchie County,
Mississippi, William L. Brewer, Jr., in his individual and official
capacity as the former sheriff of Tallahatchie County and Western
Surety Company, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00074, (N.D. Miss.,
March 10, 2020), seeks to recover back-pay, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, as against the Defendant William L. Brewer, Jr.,
and reasonable costs, fees and expenses for racial discrimination
made actionable pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Shirley Taylor Thomas worked with Tallahatchie County as a 911
dispatcher since 2005. On July 28, 2015, Mrs. Thomas, an
African-American, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging racial
discrimination. Tragically, Mrs. Thomas passed away on April 2,
2017 leaving her husband, Johnny B. Thomas as administrator of her
estate. On July 27, 2017, the EEOC found that there was reasonable
cause for discrimination.
Mrs. Thomas complained about the wage disparities and differing
terms and conditions of employment between Caucasian and black
employees of the Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department claiming
that Caucasian employees had higher wages than black employees for
comparable work. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor Israel Fleitas, Esq.
VICTOR I. FLEITAS, P.A.
452 North Spring Street
Tupelo, MS 38804
Tel: (662) 840-0270
Fax: (662) 840-1047
Email: fleitasv@bellsouth.net
- and -
R. Shane McLaughlin, Esq.
MCLAUGHLIN LAW FIRM
338 North Spring Street, Suite 2
Tupelo, MS 38804
Tel: (662) 840-5042
Fax: (662) 840-5043
Email: rsm@mclaughlinlawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Couple Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane and John Doe, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. University Hospitals Health
System, Inc., University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and
University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, Inc., Computer Aided
Solutions LLC, Andrew Bhatnager, Ph.D., Sodexo Operations, LLC,
James Goldfarb M.D., James Liu M.D. and Brooke Rossi M.D.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00482 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2020), seeks
compensatory and property damages, emotional damages, attorney's
fees, costs of suit, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
such other relief resulting from breach of contract and negligence
and for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
Plaintiffs trusted the University Hospitals Fertility Center to
safeguard their embryos in the hope of having children and starting
a family. Jane Doe had an in-vitro fertilization performed and was
able to have four high graded viable embryos created, of which two
were frozen with intent to plant in 2018. In March 2018, the
storage bank suffered a significant temperature fluctuation and 700
frozen eggs were damaged.
University Hospitals operated the Ahuja Medical center in
Beachwood, Ohio and specializes in in-vitro fertilization along
with other unique medical and surgical fields as well at their
fertility center. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Tel: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
rfdicello@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
US PACK: Kendus FLSA Suit Moved From D. Maryland to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MARK KENDUS and KEITH KENDUS,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. US
PACK SERVICES LLC and US PACK MED LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00496
(Filed Feb. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on March 10, 2020.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:20-cv-00432-PGB-GJK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron.
The complaint seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Maryland State Law. The Plaintiffs and
the class they seek to represent have been subject to improper
deductions from their pay and have been denied overtime pay because
of the Defendants' practice of improperly classifying the
Plaintiffs and other courier drivers as independent contractors,
says the complaint.
The Defendants provide logistics, freight forwarding, and
warehousing services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Michael Gsovski, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Mark Baskin, Esq.
Brooks R. Amiot, Esq.
Eric R. Magnus, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
2800 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (410) 415-2000
VALENTINE AND KERBATAS: Cardenas Hits Illegal Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Valentine and Kebartas, LLC, Resurgent
Capital Services, LP, LVNV Funding, LLC and John and Jane Does
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00300 (W.D. Tex., March 11, 2020),
seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act.
LVNV purchases portfolios of consumer debt from banks and finance
companies as well as other debt buyers. Resurgent is a manager and
servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for
credit grantors and debt buyers, including LVNV, and performs these
services on their behalf. Valentine is into the collection of
defaulted consumer debts.
Cardenas allegedly incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation
owed to U.S. Bank, N.A. The latter determined the account was
uncollectable and charged it off. However, Defendants continued
collection efforts and sent Cardenas a collection letter that
falsely threatened that the current creditor may apply interest or
other charges which would increase the balance of the debt merely
by the passage of time and created a false sense of urgency that if
the Debt is not promptly paid it will increase substantially and
without notice. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
katelyn@sternthomasson.com
- and -
William M. Clanton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
926 Chulie Drive
San Antonio, TX 78216
Telephone: (210) 226-0800
Facsimile: (210) 338-8660
E-Mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com
WIPRO LIMITED: Faces MacLean Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory MacLean, Rick Valles, Ardeshir Pezeshki, James Gibbs, and
Ronald Hemenway, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated individuals v. WIPRO LIMITED, Case No.
3:20-cv-03414-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 30, 2020), is brought to
remedy alleged pervasive, ongoing race and national origin
discrimination by the Defendant.
According to the complaint, while only about 12% of the United
States' IT industry (the industry in which Wipro operates) is South
Asian, at least 80% (or more) of Wipro's United States workforce is
South Asian (primarily from India). This grossly disproportionate
workforce results from Wipro's intentional pattern and practice of
employment discrimination against individuals, who are not South
Asian and who are not of Indian national origin, including
discrimination in hiring, promotion, and termination decisions, and
its use of employment practices that result in a disparate impact
on those same groups.
The Plaintiffs contend that Wipro's employment practices violate
the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Plaintiffs seek, on their own
behalf, and on behalf of three classes of similarly situated
individuals, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, including pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to redress Wipro's pervasive
pattern and practice of discrimination.
Plaintiffs MacLean, Valles, Gibb, and Hemenway are of American
national origin and Caucasian race or Hispanic race. Plaintiff
Pezeshki is of Iranian national origin and Caucasian race.
Wipro Limited is an Indian multinational corporation that provides
consulting, technology, and outsourcing services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, LLC.
788 Shrewsbury Avenue
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone: (732) 842-2070
Facsimile: (732) 879-0213
Email: jonr@jonrudlaw.com
ZION OIL: Court Narrows Claims in Peak Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT W. PEAK and CINDY J. HURRELBRINK PEAK, and
LAWRENCE DAVIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZION OIL & GAS, INC., VICTOR G. CARRILLO,
and MICHAEL B. CROSWELL, JR., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:18-CV-02067-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
(i) granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (ii)
denied the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to strike.
Lead Plaintiffs Robert W. Peak, Cindy J. Hurrelbrink Peak, and
Davis in the putative class action allege that the Defendants made
false statements and omissions to investors about its exploration
activities in Israel, its financial statements, and a Securities
and Exchange Commission investigation. The lead plaintiffs have
pending claims under both the Securities Act of 1933, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Zion is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in Dallas. John M. Brown formed the company in 2000 with a vision
of helping Israel become energy independent. Zion went public in
2007. The pleadings allege that Zion raised over $181 million from
investors through a direct stock purchase plan that bypassed
investment banks and stockbrokers. During the class period (Feb.
13, 2019 through Nov. 20, 2019), Zion had one petroleum exploration
license in Israel -- to drill the Megiddo-Jezreel #1 well.
The Lead Plaintiffs allege that Zion made representations that its
oil exploration activities were based on modern science and good
business practice, but that it instead uses 2D seismic technology
instead of industry-standard 3D seismic technology. They cite to a
June 27, 2018 Financial Times article calling into question how
Zion could have lower investor relations costs in 2015-17 but
substantially increased investor capital between 2016-17. They
also cite a subsequent Financial Times article that concluded that
the Zion's disclosed $139,000 median employee salary figure was
erroneously low. The Lead Plaintiffs further allege that,
according to a whistleblower complaint to the Commission, Zion paid
a Christian minister to promote the company's stock. They further
criticize statements in Zion press releases about the
Megiddo-Jezreel #1 that said that the well was a geological
success.
Finally, the Lead Plaintiffs claim Zion misled investors regarding
a Commission investigation. A tweet from an anonymous account
indicated that the Commission withheld documents in response to a
public information request into whether the Commission was
investigating Zion. Zion responded by stating there was no
Commission investigation but that there were merely indicators of a
routine FINRA questionnaire that's standard after a steep rise of
our stock recently. Subsequently, Zion similarly denied the
existence of any pending or threatened proceeding that expected to
have a material adverse effect on its financial position in its
first quarter Form 10-Q filing with the Commission. Within that
month, the investment journal Probes Reporter confirmed that Zion
was the subject of an ongoing Commission enforcement proceeding
after filing a public information appeal. Zion reiterated its
position in a tweet that there was no Commission investigation.
The Commission subpoenaed Zion on June 21, 2018, and Zion disclosed
that fact to investors on July 11. Its stock fell 11% by the end
of the next day. In August, the same anonymous Twitter account
posted a link to the Commission whistleblower tip. Several top
staff changes followed, including the resignation of the chairman
of the governance committee, the CEO, and the auditing firm. In
November 2018, Zion disclosed that the Megiddo-Jezreel #1 well was
not viable, and Zion's stock fell 57% the next day.
Zion filed a motion to dismiss, and the accompanying appendix is
the subject of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to strike. The Lead
Plaintiffs also filed a notice requesting oral argument, objecting
to arguments in Zion's reply that they believe to be new and
stating what they would state at a hearing. Zion filed a response
stating what it would state at a hearing. True to form, the Lead
Plaintiffs got the last word in their reply.
Zion first attacks the complaint as failing to meet the Public
Securities Litigation Reform Act's requirement of alleging the
statements were false or misleading when made.
Judge Starr agrees with Zion that the Lead Plaintiffs have failed
to plead that the statements or omissions were false or misleading
when made. For example, the amended complaint alleges that Zion
stated it encountered hydrocarbons in the drilling mud in the
Megiddo-Jezreel #1 well. But there is no indication in the
complaint that such statements were false when made. On the
contrary, Zion disclosed in Commission filings that they do not
have any proved reserves or current production of oil or gas. They
cannot assure them that any wells will be completed or produce oil
or gas in commercially profitable quantities. As pled, the amended
complaint does not allege that Zion knew such statements were false
when made.
The Judge will defer to a second amended complaint and subsequent
motion to dismiss to determine what statements constitute
nonactionable opinion or puffery. He will give the Lead Plaintiffs
a final opportunity to make their best substantiated allegations
and consider them holistically before the Court dismisses anything
with prejudice.
Zion also raises the argument that some of the Lead Plaintiffs'
pleadings lack specificity. For example, the amended complaint
alleges lavish executive compensation and excessive marketing
expenses. But the complaint fails to specify what statements Zion
made and how its compensation and marketing caused those statements
to be false. Likewise, the Lead Plaintiffs claim that Zion
misrepresented its financial condition in its 2017 10-K because
Zion has reported the same estimated costs for drilling and
exploration activities for multiple years. But the amended
complaint lacks any substantiation of "industrywide price
fluctuations and other market conditions" it says could have caused
such statements to be false.
Finally, the amended complaint seeks to establish liability by the
defendants for a sermon of Dr. David Jeremiah. But the Lead
Plaintiffs have yet to sue Dr. Jeremiah for any failure to disclose
that he owned stock in Zion. Nor does the complaint allege that
Zion controlled Dr. Jeremiah and his sermons -- the farthest
standard in this area of the law a court has appeared to reach.
The Lead Plaintiffs must replead to indicate which specific
statements they are challenging as fraudulent (and the requisite
who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud).
The motion to dismiss also contends that the amended complaint
fails to plead a cogent and compelling inference of scienter.
Specifically, the Defendants argue the complaint lacks sufficient
allegations to make a case "at least as compelling" as any opposing
inference because it contains group pleadings allegations.
The Judge holds that falsity and scienter are first cousins in a
case such as the instant case. The Lead Plaintiffs' allegations
must make a showing both that the statements were false when made
(falsity) and that the defendants knew of the falsity or had severe
recklessness (scienter). Because the Court has required a
repleading as to falsity, any determination as to scienter at this
specific time would be premature. But the issues the Court
identified about falsity are also issues the Lead Plaintiffs must
plead adequately in their amended complaint to avoid dismissal with
prejudice. And they should be mindful that any amended complaint
must avoid group pleading.
As to the Lead Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims, Zion argues that
they lack standing because they cannot trace their shares to the
specific registration statement at issue. The Lead Plaintiffs
respond that class member Lawrence Davis has shares traceable to
the April 2018 and August 2018 offerings.
The Court previously appointed Dennis Robertson and Melody Guy as
the Lead Plaintiffs after their only competition withdrew. The
fact that Lawrence Davis might have standing is not equivalent to
the Lead Plaintiffs having standing. It raises the specter about
whether the proper lead plaintiffs came forward and were chosen.
The Public Securities Litigation Reform Act requires the original
plaintiff to widely circulate within 20 days of the filing of the
complaint a notification of the class claims, and it allows any
purported class member to move to serve as lead plaintiff within 60
days. One individual other than Robertson and Guy petitioned to be
the Lead Plaintiff some 16 months ago, but he later withdrew.
Thus, the Judge chose the only individuals who sought the
designation. And the Lead Plaintiffs do not seek to disturb that
settled ruling they themselves asked for. Accordingly, he grants
Zion's motion as to the Securities Act claims, and dismissed the
Lead Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims due to lack of standing.
For these reasons, Judge Starr granted in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. He dismissed without prejudice the Lead
Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims due to lack of standing. And he
dismissed without prejudice the Lead Plaintiffs' Exchange Act
claims for failure to comply with the pertinent pleading standards.
The Lead Plaintiffs must refile their complaint within 28 days of
the issuance of the Order. Additionally, the Judge denied the
motion to strike any material this order references. To the extent
such materials are not referenced in the Order, he denied without
prejudice the motion to strike. Finally, he construed the request
for oral argument as a motion for leave to file a sur-reply, and
granted it.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/akh9cx from Leagle.com.
Robert W Peak & Cindy J Hurrelbrink Peak, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Willie Briscoe -- wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law
Firm, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick Dahlstrom
-- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.
Lawrence Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Jafri, Pomerantz
LLP, Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.
Zion Oil & Gas Inc, Victor G Carrillo & Michael B Croswell, Jr,
Defendants, represented by Jessica B. Pulliam --
jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker
Botts, Jordan Alexandra Kazlow -- jordan.kazlow@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP & Thomas E. O'Brien -- tom.obrien@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP.
George P Rambo, Movant, represented by Jamie Jean Gilmore, Tanner
and Associates, Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Joe Kendall,
Kendall Law Group PLLC.
Riley Crumley & Virginia Victoria Rideout, Movants, represented by
R. Dean Gresham, Steckler Gresham Cochran.
*********
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 ***