/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200416.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 77 Headlines ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: LaChance Says Dialog Merger Deal Lacks Info ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware District Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Lucas, Ullum Sue Over Abrupt Worker Layoffs ALL MARKET INC: Ali & Gibson Call Vita Coco Labeling "Deceptive" ALLEGHENY CTY: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Graham Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Reece Over Monopolistic Sale of E-Cigs AMEREN ILLINOIS CO: Rossman Files Suit in Illinois APCT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Medina Alleges APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Connectivity Issue, Anderson et al. Claim ARDENT COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Orozco Suit with Prejudice BENGAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Barahona Claims BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Lozano Seeks Overtime Pay for VA Counselors BOOHOO.COM USA: Khan Sues over Phantom Discounts BRICKS CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL: Martinez Alleges Improper Pay for Laborers BROKERS EDGE GENERAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Loyhayem CANON BUSINESS: Fowler Alleges Misconduct on Data Breach Incident CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Lewis Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Alleges Improper Overdraft Fees CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues in California Over Violation of FCRA CF ARCIS: $240K Settlement in Hart Suit Gets Final Court Approval CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit COLONIAL PENN LIFE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Life Insurance Policies COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Thervil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Class Suit Removed to S.D. California COVINGTON CREDIT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jones Claims CRM PROPERTY: Mendez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CRUNCH LLC: Chavez Seeks Proper Wages for Personal Trainers DEVA CONCEPTS: Souza Sues Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects DEVON ENERGY: Price Seeks Overtime Pay for Utility Inspectors DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Wants to Stop Excessive Rents DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Rickenbaker Suit Over Tuition Fee Refund DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages E-HOUSE CHINA: Maso Capital et al. Sue Over 2016 Merger FAMILY VENTURES: Igoe Hits Insufficient Vehicle Reimbursement FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Remand of Walters Suit to State Court Denied FINANCE SYSTEMS: Forman Sues in S.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation FORMULA 5: Tenley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP: Lee Sues Over Excessive Charges FS HOTELS: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay, Rest & Meal Periods for Staff FUSION PHARMACY: Katz Balks at Unsolicited Fax Advertisements GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Appeals March 5 Judgment to 2nd Circuit GENERAL NUTRITION CORP: Clausen Suit Transferred to New York GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Brighton Trustees Suit in E.D. Virginia H. BEST LTD: Nisbett Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind HAYCO CORP: Huitzil et al. Seek Proper Pay for Superintendents HERB & DEE'S: Staub et al. Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages HOT TOPIC: Class Settlement in Soukhaphohn Suit Gets Final Approval HP: Gould Questions Decision to Block Xerox Buyout INTUIT INC: Deceives Taxpayers With TurboTax, Williams Suit Says KALYAN HOSPITALITY: Underpays Salaried Hotel Staff, Pinon Claims LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Advisor Group Merger-Related Class Suit LOUISIANA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Little Detainees Suit LUCKIN COFFEE: Misleads Securities Buyers, Gopu et al. Claim LYFT INC: Seeks First Circuit Review of Ruling in Cunningham Suit MAINTENX INT'L: Binion Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Maintenance Staff MDL 2433: Dupont Can't Modify Expert Affirmative Causation Opinions MEET GROUP: Paskowitz Sues over Misleading SEC Proxy Statement MEET GROUP: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Post Claims MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Robinson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices MINNESOTA: Faces Evenstad Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights MONROE COUNTY, FL: Lola Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights NATIONAL CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Portnoy Partly Granted NEON THERAPEUTICS: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Franchi Claims NESTLE USA: NESQUIK Labeling "Deceptive," Santini Claims OAKDALE, PA: Livas Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus for Detainees OXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnathan Z. ERISA Suit PATRIOT INSPECTION: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Stanley Claims PEP BOYS-MANNY: Pa. Eastern District Narrows Claims in Thorne Suit PHEAA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Silver TCPA Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING: McBrayer Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay PNC BANK: Bid to Certify MLO Class in Kazi Suit Partly Granted PSI LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Wiggins Claims PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Church Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid Shutdown RATNER STEEL: Harris Seeks OT Pay to Crane Line Operators RICHMOND, VA: Class in Yerbey FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ROBINHOOD GROUP: Users Hits Trading App Downtime, Claims Losses RT PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Delivery Drivers, Hurt Says SELECT PORTFOLIO: Settlement in Kahn Suit Gets Final Court Approval SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Kupfer Alleges Violation under FDCPA SILVER LAKE GROUP: Hill Alleges Insider Trading in Intelsat SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Williams Seeks Civil Penalties for Unpaid Wages STEVE & SONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aguilar Claims TARGET CORP: Settlement Agreement in Atherton Suit Partly Granted TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Discriminates Against Female Staff, Rocha Says TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Data Breach Suit From Boykin, Robbins THEMAVEN INC: Jones Claims Website not Deaf-accessible TOWN SPORTS: Members Still Charged Despite Closure, Radford Says TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Ferraguto Suit Over False Marketing TRUEACCORD CORP: Burch Files FDCPA Suit in Florida ULTIMATE CARWASH: Underpays Car Washers & Detailers, Mitchell Says UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in David P. ERISA Suit UNITED STATES: DeSuze Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in South Carolina VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ziarno Sues Over Automobile Sunroof Defect WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York WESTON MEMORY: Underpays Caregivers, Troutman Claims YONKERS, NY: Malkawi Files Civil Rights Suit in New York ZOOM VIDEO: Brams Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents ********* ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: LaChance Says Dialog Merger Deal Lacks Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALAIN LACHANCE, Plaintiff, vs. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, NELSON CHAN, NARBEH DERHACOBIAN, HERVÉ FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN PALATNIK, and SUSAN UTHAYAKUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02344 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiff against Adesto Technologies Corporation and the members of Adesto's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Adesto will be acquired by Dialog Semiconductor plc through Dialog's wholly owned subsidiary Azara Acquisition Corp. On February 20, 2020, Adesto and Dialog issued a joint press release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 20, 2020 to sell Adesto to Dialog. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Adesto common stock will receive $12.55 in cash for each share of Adesto common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $500 million. On March 27, 2020, Adesto filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Adesto stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Cowen and Company, LLC and (ii) potential conflicts of interest faced by Cowen. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Adesto Technologies Corporation is a California-based leading provider of innovative, application-specific semiconductors and embedded systems that provide the key building blocks of Internet of Things edge devices operating on networks worldwide. The Company's product portfolio includes analog, digital and non-volatile memory technologies delivered in the form of standard products, application-specific integrated circuits and intellectual property cores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 -and- Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware District Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civ. No. 18-212-RGA (D. Del.), Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (i) granted in part and denied in part the Advance Auto Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) granted the Starboard Defendants' motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi asserts claims for federal securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Section 10(b) claim is asserted against Advance Auto, Thomas R. Greco, and Thomas Okray ("Advance Auto Defendants"). Messrs. Greco and Okray ("Individual Defendants") were the CEO and CFO of Advance Auto, respectively. The Section 20(a) claim is asserted against Starboard Value LP and Jeffrey C. Smith ("Starboard Defendants") as well as the Individual Defendants. Starboard is a hedge fund that owned approximately 3.7% of Advance Auto's shares, and Smith was the CEO of Starboard. In connection with Starboard's investment in Advance Auto, Smith was also appointed to the Board of Directors for Advance Auto. In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that the Defendants projected increased sales and operating margins for Advance Auto in fiscal year 2017 ("FY17 projections") at a time when they knew those projections were unattainable. When "the truth finally emerged" in August 2017, the Company's stock price dropped. The Plaintiff thereafter initiated the lawsuit. The Advance Auto Defendants and the Starboard Defendants have each filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint. Judge Andrews granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Advance Auto Defendants. For Count I, based on Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, the motion is denied as to the claims based on the projection statements and the opinion statements, and the motion is granted as to all remaining statements. The dismissed claims are dismissed without prejudice. For Count II, based on Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the motion is denied as to the projection statements and opinion statements, and the motion is granted as to all remaining statements. The dismissed claims are dismissed without prejudice. Among other things, Judge Andrews finds that a projection is an untrue statement under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 if it was issued "without a reasonable basis." A projection lacks a reasonable basis, and is thus actionable, if it was made with either (1) an inadequate consideration of the available data or (2) the use of unsound forecasting methodology. The complaint states a claim that the projections lacked a reasonable basis due to an inadequate methodology. The Court also finds that the complaint has, contrary to the Defendants' assertions, alleged particularized facts suggesting a lack of reasonable basis for the opinions. The Defendants further argue that the opinion statements are not actionable, because the complaint does not allege that the opinions were not honestly believed. But that allegation is not required, because the Plaintiff is not proceeding under the first prong of Omnicare. Only the first prong of Omnicare requires the speaker to not actually hold the stated belief. The Plaintiff, however, is proceeding under the third prong. The Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Starboard Defendants, and the claims against them are dismissed without prejudice. Even if the complaint adequately alleged control by the Starboard Defendants, it does not allege culpable participation. Culpable participation for purposes of Section 20(a) refers to either knowing and substantial participation in the wrongdoing or inaction with the intent to further the fraud or prevent its discovery. The complaint does not allege that the Starboard Defendants controlled the drafting or publishing of the press releases at issue, or that the Starboard Defendants reviewed or signed them before publication. Instead, the complaint's allegations regarding Starboard Defendants' culpable participation are entirely conclusory. Such conclusory allegations do not satisfy the PSLRA's particularity requirement. Accordingly, the Section 20(a) claims against the Starboard Defendants are dismissed without prejudice, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/tVjiyp from Leagle.com. Jewel Wigginton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Farnan -- bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP & Michael J. Farnan -- mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Thomas R. Greco & Thomas Okray, Defendants, represented by Renee Marie Mosley -- mosley@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Douglas P. Baumstein -- dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Katharine Lester Mowery -- mowery@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Samuel A. Nolen -- nolen@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Susan L. Grace -- susan.grace@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice. Gardiner Murphy, Movant, represented by Brian E. Farnan, Farnan LLP. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Movant, represented by Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. Sudhir Kapoor, Movant, represented by Ryan M. Ernst -- rernst@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC. ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Lucas, Ullum Sue Over Abrupt Worker Layoffs -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTINA LUCAS and AUGUST "BOB" ULLUM, II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALECTO HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ALECTO HEALTHCARE SERVICES WHEELING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00067-JPB (N.D. W.Va., April 7, 2020) arises out of a violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act after Defendant fails to provide workers with the notice of layoff following the closure of its Ohio Valley Medical Center facility. As a result of Defendant's willful disregard of its statutory obligations to its employees, workers were blindsided by the widespread job loss and individuals, as well as the community, suffered as a result. Ullum was employed as a physical therapist while Lucas as an emergency room technician when they were laid off after the closure of the Ohio Valley Medical Center. Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC is a California-based healthcare infrastructure services provider. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aubrey Sparks, Esq. Bren Pomponio, Esq. Mountain State Justice, Inc. 1217 Quarrier Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-3144 Facsimile: (304) 344-3145 – and – F. Alex Risovich, Esq. Risovich Law Offices, PLLC 3023 Pennsylvania Avenue Weirton, WV 26062 Telephone: (304)723-2588 Facsimile: (304)723-2504 ALL MARKET INC: Ali & Gibson Call Vita Coco Labeling "Deceptive" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Ali, Margaret Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- All Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-02823 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells coconut milk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla, under the Vita Coco brand. According to the complaint, the Product is misleading because although labeled as "Vanilla," it has less vanilla than the label represents and contains non-vanilla flavors that supply most of the vanilla taste. The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains non-vanilla flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean, yet these flavors are not disclosed to consumers as required and expected. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the Product. All Market, Inc. is a New York-based company that provides non-carbonated beverages and offers coconut water, sparkling, milk, oil, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd Ste 311 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALLEGHENY CTY: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Graham Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed in the class action styled as Michael Graham, Alexus Diggs and Heather Connolly, on behalf of themelves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Allegheny County and Orlando Harper, Warden of Allegheny County Jail, Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00496-CRE (W.D., Penn., April 8, 2020). Allegheny County is a county in the southwest of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. As of 2019, the population was 1,216,045, making it the state's second-most populous county, following Philadelphia County. The county seat is Pittsburgh.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bret Grote, Esq. Abolitionist Law Center PO Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Tel: (412) 654-9070 Email: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Reece Over Monopolistic Sale of E-Cigs ------------------------------------------------------------ Douglas J. Reece, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02345 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendants concerning anticompetitive agreements between them in which Altria agreed to refrain from competing against Juul in the United States market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in Juul, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. In light of declining sales in the market for traditional cigarettes and a shift by consumers to alternative nicotine delivery devices, Altria viewed participation in the e-cigarette market as essential to its long-term survival. In 2013, Altria entered the market through its subsidiary Nu Mark LLC. Its flagship product was the MarkTen e-cigarette. In 2015, Juul entered the relevant market with a sleek new device and quickly captured a substantial share of the market. By 2018, Juul had amassed market share of over 70 percent stunning Altria and other competitors. Juul's swift rise posed a grave competitive threat to Altria in the both the e-cigarette and traditional cigarette markets. To eliminate that threat, Altria began a two-prong strategy of trying to acquire Juul while continuing to compete aggressively against it, the Plaintiff avers. According to the complaint, Altria continued to press the acquisition. In the fall of 2018, Juul agreed to negotiate with Altria under the condition that Altria stop competing with Juul in the market for e-cigarettes. Discussions would not begin until Altria had pulled its products off the shelves. Altria, at first, refused to consider this condition, but in October 2018 it succumbed to the pressure and began to withdraw its e-cigarette products from the relevant market. Two months later in December 2018, Altria announced its intention to cease competing entirely in the relevant market. Approximately two weeks after making this announcement, Altria disclosed that, on October 20, 2018, it had executed a Purchase Agreement and related agreements with Juul. The Transaction's anticompetitive effects were particularly clear in the market for closed-system e-cigarettes given high barriers to entry, such as U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval, the Plaintiff contends. He notes that repositioning new products in the market was also unavailing to counter the anticompetitive impact of the Transaction. He asserts that the Defendants cannot show the transaction restricting competition resulted in cognizable efficiencies sufficient to outweigh the competitive harm caused by Altria's agreement to exit the relevant market; nor can the Defendants point to pro-competitive benefits that could not have been achieved through less restrictive means. In fact, he adds, much of the Defendants' collaboration was restructured in January 2020 to eliminate its marketing aspects, further reducing the scope of theoretical benefits from their agreements. The Defendants' conduct has illegally restrained competition in the relevant market in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Plaintiff argues. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, entities that purchased Juul products were overcharged and sustained injury to their business and property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Juul products directly from Juul on the Juul.com. Altria is one of the country's largest tobacco companies and was formerly a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barrett Beasley, Esq. SALIM BEASLEY LLC 1901 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457 Phone: (318) 354-1043 Fax: (318) 354-1227 Email: bbeasely@salim-beasley.com - and - Michael M. Buchman, Esq. Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 577-0050 Fax: (212) 577-0054 Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com mclerkin@motleyrice.com AMEREN ILLINOIS CO: Rossman Files Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameren Illinois Company. The case is styled as Kevin Rossman, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ameren Illinois Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02214 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory Actions filed pursuant to the Fed. Election Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance. Ameren Corporation is an American power company created December 31, 1997, by the merger of St. Louis, Missouri's Union Electric Company and the neighboring Central Illinois Public Service Company of Springfield, Illinois. It is now a holding company for several power companies and energy companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. Bruckner Burch PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Joy Froehlich, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 715-5775 Email: jennifer.froehlich@hklaw.com APCT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Medina Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHIE MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APCT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20CV365251 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, to provide meal periods and permit rest breaks, and to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Apct, Inc., manufactures electrical components. The Company specializes in providing printed circuit boards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-malil: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Connectivity Issue, Anderson et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ELAINE ANDERSON, DIANA ATKINS, SCOTT BURST, BETH CHAVEZ, COLEA CHILDS, EUIHWAN CHO, ALISON COLEMAN, VICTORIA CORNWELL, DONALD DAHL, JACQUELINE DEMERITTE, CANDACE MARTINO, SCOTT SAPKOSKY and ERIK VILLAGRAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02328 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2020) contends that the Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells their iPhone XR with defects that the Defendant was aware of. The Defendant fails to disclose at the point of sale or otherwise inform consumers including the Plaintiffs that this design difference causes the iPhone XR to have half the signal connectivity and 4G speed of the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max and renders the XR far less capable of obtaining a reliable connection in the same areas where the XS and Max can reliable connect. Plaintiffs bring this action for the Defendants' alleged violation of California consumer protection acts and for breach of express and implied warranties on behalf of a nationwide class. Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Ben Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com – and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com ARDENT COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Orozco Suit with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge George W. Hu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, EDGAR OROZCO, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Assigned to George H. Wu Plaintiff, v. ARDENT COMPANIES, INC., a Louisiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CV 18-2763-GW-SSx (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Order dated Feb. 3, 2020 adopting its tentative ruling as the Court's final ruling and thereby granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Service Award, the parties will comply with the terms of the Settlement as approved. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/B5VVEN from Leagle.com. Edgar Orozco, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Anthony Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC, Andrew Clayton Ellison -- andrew@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC & Aris Edmund Karakalos -- aris@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC. Ardent Companies, Inc., a Louisiana company, Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Perry K. Miska, Jr. -- pmiska@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. BENGAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Barahona Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGINALDO BARAHONA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BENGAL RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a BENGAL INDIAN CUISINE, and MAINUL M. CHOWDHURY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21492 (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020) is a collective action seeking to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempted, full time, hourly cook, dishwasher, kitchen cleaner, and janitor, from approximately January 15, 2018 to March 20, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently and regularly worked 72 hours weekly, but compensated for only 40 hours. Also, Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunch periods during his employment with Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. Moreover, when Plaintiff complained about the unpaid overtime hours on or about March 20, 2020, he was immediately fired by Defendant Chowdhury. Mainul M. Chowdhury is the owner/officer and manager of Bengal Indian Cuisine. Bengal Restaurant LLC d/b/a Bengal Indian Cuisine is an Indian restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305)446-1500 Fax: (305)446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Lozano Seeks Overtime Pay for VA Counselors ------------------------------------------------------------- MOSES LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00450 (W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salaried Veterans Affairs (VA) Claims Counselor from September 2017 until February 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated VA Claims Counselors regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant deprived them of overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week. Plaintiff seeks overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of forty per week, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and other costs. Bexar County, Texas operates the Bexar County Military and Veterans Services Center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501)221-0088 Fax: (888)787-2040 Emails: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BOOHOO.COM USA: Khan Sues over Phantom Discounts ------------------------------------------------ FARID KHAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BOOHOO.COM USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, BOOHOO GROUP PLC, a United Kingdom public limited company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03332 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Boohoo.com USA, Inc. and Boohoo Group PLC for their false and deceptive pricing practices in connection with their sale of "boohoo" branded clothing, accessories and other items on their U.S. website, http://us.boohoo.com. According to the complaint, Boohoo does so by advertising fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. For example, anyone visiting Boohoo's site on a given day during a "50% OFF EVERYTHING SALE" who buys a dress "on sale" for $20 based on a crossed-out reference price of $40 is being misled. This is deception because that dress has rarely, if ever, been sold in the recent past on the site for $40. By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an immediate end to the Defendant's untruthful marketing practices and recover restitution and damages on behalf of all persons who have fallen victim to Boohoo's sham sales by purchasing products on Boohoo's website from April 2016 to the present. Boohoo.com USA, Inc. is a California-based company engaged in the business of marketing and selling "boohoo" branded clothing and accessories on the Internet. Boohoo Group PLC serves as the parent company of the online clothing brands boohoo, boohooMAN, PrettyLittleThing, Nasty Gal, Karen Millen, Coast, and Miss Pap. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yasin M. Almadani, Esq. ALMADANI LAW 14742 Beach Blvd., Suite 410 La Mirada, CA 90638 Telephone: (213) 335-3935 Facsimile: (213) 296-6278 Email: yma@lawalm.com – and – Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq. AI LAW, PLC 4343 Von Karman Ave, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 260-1240 Facsimile: (949) 260-1280 Email: aibrahim@ailawfirm.com BRICKS CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexei Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aztec Party Handlers and Rentals, Inc. and Bricks Construction Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01010 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), seeks unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Hernandez worked for Bricks Construction, currently a contractor for Aztec, as a laborer from October 2019 until March 7, 2020, setting up tents, tables, chairs and lighting for special events at hotels and other venues. He claims that he works more than 40 hours per week without overtime. [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 BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL: Martinez Alleges Improper Pay for Laborers ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA MARTINEZ, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., and TMG MAILING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03722 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020) is a class action brought to remedy Defendants' failure to comply with federal and state wage-and-hour laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a manual laborer in the Edgewood Facility since March 2018. Ms. Martinez and the FLSA and New York class members she seeks to represent are current and former manual laborers who perform the hauling, sorting, and packing of printed materials at Defendants' mailing and printing facility in Edgewood, New York and generally have the position title of Hauler, Sorter, or Packer, or other similar titles. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. provides a broad array of communication and technology services including mailing and printing services to companies around the globe. TMG Mailing Solutions, Inc. is a national provider of office management, mailing, and printing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen D. Savits, Esq. GREEN SAVITS, LLC 25B Vreeland Road. Suite 207 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 695-7777 Email: Gsavits@greensavits.com – and – Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. Artemio Guerram, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Email: Msweeney@getmansweeny.com Aguerra@getmansweeney.com BROKERS EDGE GENERAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Loyhayem ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHNATHAN LOYHAYEM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROKERS EDGE GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03323 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, Defendant regularly makes autodialed telephone calls to consumers in order to solicit business. At no point did Plaintiff inquire Defendant about its services or provide authorization to receive autodialed calls on his cellular telephone from Defendant. The Defendant's call forced Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members to live without the utility of their cellular phones by occupying their cellular telephone with one or more unwanted calls, causing a nuisance and lost time. Brokers Edge General Insurance Services, Inc. is a California-based insurance broking company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com – and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com CANON BUSINESS: Fowler Alleges Misconduct on Data Breach Incident ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case STEVEN FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CANON BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES, INC. and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02903 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020) arises out of a data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Canon, which held in its possession personally identifiable information ("PII") of Defendant GE's employees, former employees, and other beneficiaries entitled to benefits from GE. The PII exposed in the Data Breach included, among other things: direct deposit forms, driver's licenses, passports, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, medical child support orders, tax withholding forms, beneficiary designation forms and applications for benefits such as retirement, severance and death benefits with related forms and documents, may have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, and other information contained in the relevant forms. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect employees' and former employees' PII. Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class Member PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com – and – L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com – and – Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com – and – Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Email: gklinger@masonllp.com CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Lewis Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts LLC. The case is captioned as Angela Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Accounts, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01216-WMR-WEJ (N.D. Ga., March 18, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capital Accounts specializes in the collection of overdue balances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq. MASON LAW GROUP, LLC 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 920-8040 Facsimile: (404) 920-8039 E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Alleges Improper Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRECISION ROOFING OF N. FLORIDA INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTERSTATE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2020) is a civil action seeking monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendant, arising from bank's routine practice of assessing and collecting "overdraft fees" on accounts that were never actually overdrawn. The Defendant issues debit cards to its checking account customers, including Plaintiff, which allows its customers to have electronic access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments, withdrawals and other electronic debit transactions. According to the complaint, the Defendant charges fees (currently in the amount of $35) for debit card transactions that purportedly result in an overdraft, pursuant to its standard account agreement. The Centerstate's customers have been injured by its improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in violation of their agreements with Centerstate. Centerstate Bank is 75th largest bank in the United States and holds more than $17 billion in assets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com – and – Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues in California Over Violation of FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cenveo Worldwide Limited, et al. The case is styled as Ramon Murga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cenveo Worldwide Limited, a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03179 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Cenveo Worldwide Limited is located in Richmond, Virginia, and is part of the commercial printing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Alexander De Sario, Esq. NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com CF ARCIS: $240K Settlement in Hart Suit Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEPHEN LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and MICHAEL RALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, and d/b/a SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, CF ARCIS IV HOLDINGS, LLC, ARCIS EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, BLAKE S. WALKER, individually and on behalf of the marital community of BLAKE S. WALKER and JANE DOE WALKER, and BRIGHTSTAR GOLF SNOQUALMIE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, and (ii) the Class Counsel's motion for an award of fees and costs. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in September 2019. The Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class's claims against Arcis in exchange for Arcis' agreement to provide an agreed number of immediate refunds upon approval, to provide a minimum number of refunds for three years following Jan. 1, 2020, and to provide future refunds as set forth in the Agreement. Upon consideration of all papers filed and proceedings in the matter, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement. The Court finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, within the authority of the parties, and the result of extensive arm's length negotiations with the guidance of an experienced mediator. The Court confirmed that the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.23. Two members of the Settlement Class - John Yae, and Ray and Shannon Coleman -have timely requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class and the Settlement. Accordingly, the Order will not bind or affect these Settlement Class Members. There was one timely objection to the Settlement by Robert C. Feldmann, which after due consideration of all points made, the Court has overruled. The Court interprets it as a timely request to be excluded from the Settlement Class and Settlement and, accordingly, the Order will not bind or affect Robert C. Feldmann. The Court dismissed with prejudice all the claims of the members of the Settlement Class that have been, or could have been, alleged in the action, including the claim that Arcis unlawfully introduced non-refundable memberships and materially limited the frequency with which members with refundable memberships could receive refunds without the required notice or membership approval, as well as any other claims arising from the 2013 revisions to the June 30, 2008 Membership and Operating Policies. The Representative Plaintiffs, for themselves and as the representatives of the Settlement Class, and on behalf of each Class Member who has not timely opted out, and each of their respective agents, successors, heirs, assigns, and any other person who can claim by or through them in any manner, fully, finally, and forever irrevocably release, relinquish, and forever discharge with prejudice all Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Settlement requires Arcis to pay a $240,000 Distribution Amount into a non-reversionary fund. From this amount, the Parties will make Immediate Refunds to eight Settlement Class Members totaling $181,000. The Settlement also provides prospective relief. Arcis will make a minimum of four refunds per year for three years. Arcis will also pay a refund in the amount of 70% of the then-current price of a refundable membership each time it collects cash from membership fees (from the sale of both refundable and non-refundable memberships) equal to three times the refund amounts. And once the Club has 420 or more active golf members, Arcis will increase the frequency of refunds. Each time Arcis collects cash from membership fees (from the sale of both refundable and non-refundable memberships) equal to 1.5 times the refund amount, Arcis will pay a refund in the amount of 85% of the then-current price of a refundable membership. In all cases, Arcis will protect against any artificial reduction of the refund amount by agreeing to never sell refundable memberships at a price less than 150% of the then-current published price for nonrefundable memberships. Finally, for seven years, Arcis will prepare and furnish to the Settlement Class Members, on a semi-annual basis, statements detailing the Net Membership Fees Arcis has received, and the number and amount of refunds made in the previous year. Arcis will send the statements by email, if available, or by U.S. mail to all the Settlement Class Members who have not yet received a refund. The Court approved payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $59,000. The amount will be taken out of the Distribution Amount that is paid by Arcis. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/EnP79R from Leagle.com. Clyde Stephen Lewis, James Presti & Michael Ralls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adrienne McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. CF Arcis VII LLC, doing business as The Club at Snoqualmie Ridge, TPC at Snoqualmie Ridge, Snoqualmie Ridge Golf Club, Arcis Equity Partners, LLC & CF Arcis IV Holdings, LLC, Defendants, represented by Rebecca J. Francis , DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stephen M. Rummage , DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Robert C Feldmann, Interested Party, pro se. CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, David Jones, Individually; and David Jones, On Behalf of All Persons Similarly SITUATED, Appellants, v. CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY; AND FRANK DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, Case No. 2018-CA-001710-MR (Ky. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Nov. 1, 2018 order of the Clark Circuit Court granting summary judgment to Clark County and Doyle, individually on Jones' claims. David Jones was arrested and incarcerated on Oct. 26, 2013, in the Clark County Detention Center. While in the detention center, Jones was charged a $35 booking fee and $10 fee for each day of his confinement. Jones was incarcerated for approximately 14 months and was released on Dec. 15, 2014, after posting bond. All charges against Jones were ultimately dismissed. Subsequently, Jones received a bill totaling $4,008.85 for fees associated with his incarceration at the detention center. Jones submitted a one-time payment of $20. Jones then filed an action against Clark County, Kentucky, and Frank Doyle, Clark County Jailer, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Therein, Jones alleged that the assessed fees for his incarceration violated Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 441.265 and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Jones also raised various claims under state law. Clark County and Doyle thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. The federal district court determined that no violations of the due process clause occurred citing to Sickles v. Campbell County. The district court dismissed Jones' claims. Jones then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the due process clause presented no impediment to the assessed incarceration fees. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction on Jones' state law claims. On Feb. 3, 2017, Jones filed a Class Action Complaint against the Appellees in the Clark Circuit Court. Jones alleged that he brings the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23.01, et seq. of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all persons admitted to, incarcerated in, or released from the Jail who have had their cash confiscated and kept by the Defendants, or have been billed by the Defendants, for the costs of their confinement when the charges for which they were incarcerated were subsequently dismissed. The Appellees filed an answer and, thereafter, a motion for summary judgment. They argued that the assessed fees were authorized under KRS 441.265 and did not violate the Kentucky Constitution. Jones responded by arguing that under KRS 441.265, such fees could only be assessed by a sentencing court and not by the detention center. Moreover, Jones maintained that the assessed fees violated Sections 1, 2, 10, and 17 of the Kentucky Constitution. As a result, Jones also asserted he was entitled to damages upon the claims of negligence, conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment, and restitution. By order entered Nov. 1, 2018, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle. It determined that KRS 441.265 permitted the detention center to assess $4,008.85 in fees and that no provision of the Kentucky Constitution was violated. The appeal follows. Jones contends that the circuit court erroneously rendered summary judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle. He initially maintains the circuit court improperly interpreted KRS 441.265 as permitting the detention center to assess fees in the absence of an order from the "sentencing court." Jones believes KRS 441.265 mandates that "an order of a sentencing court" is required before a prisoner's confiscated money can be kept. Considering the plain language of KRS 441.265, the interpretation by the Court in Cole v. Warren County, and the definition of prisoner contained in KRS 441.005(3)(a), the Appellate Court holds that the trial court is bound by both statute and precedent to reach the conclusion that a jail or detention center may assess fees associated with incarceration against a prisoner who is only charged with a crime and without an order from a sentencing court. Jones next alleges that KRS 441.265 violates Sections 1, 2, 10, and 17 of the Kentucky Constitution. He generally argues that it is unconstitutional for the state to collect and keep monies from an innocent person. Jones cites to a plethora of cases; however, Jones fails to set forth any specific arguments as to how KRS 441.265 violates the cited sections of the Kentucky Constitution. Jones even fails to set forth the language of these sections. The Appellate Court concludes that Jones failed to demonstrate a violation of Sections 1, 2, 10, or 17 of the Kentucky Constitution. Jones also argues that the assessed incarceration fees violates the fundamentally American presumption of innocence. He particularly maintains that absent a plea or an adjudication of guilt, a person is presumed innocent and owes the state nothing. He maintains that the United States Supreme Court ordered the state of Colorado to return money it had confiscated from a prisoner after his conviction was vacated on appeal and the state elected to not retry the charges. The Appellate Court views Nelson v. Colorado as distinguishable. In Nelson, the appellant was ordered to pay after conviction sums to a victim compensation fund, a victims' and witnesses' assistance law enforcement fund, court costs, restitution, and a time payment fee. The time payment fee was imposed each year that appellant had not fully paid the sums ordered by the court. As such, it is clear that Nelson did not involve incarceration fees, as in the case. The Appellate Court, thus, rejected Jones' contention of error. The Appellate Court views any remaining allegations of error as moot or without merit. In sum, the Appellate Court is the opinion that the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Clark Circuit Court is affirmed, the Appellate Court rules. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/gu3C6I from Leagle.com. Gregory A. Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Prospect, Kentucky, Matt Boyd, Lexington, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellants. Jeffrey C. Mando -- jmando@aswdlaw.com -- Jennifer L. Langen, Covington, Kentucky Brief for Appellees. COLONIAL PENN LIFE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Life Insurance Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------ THURMA J. KELLEY Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, vs. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03348-CBM-E (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) alleges that Colonial Penn refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code as well as California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. Since January 1, 2013, the Defendant and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination. Colonial Penn has refused to provide required grace periods. It has also failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an annual basis. Each of these important safeguards are required by, among other sources, California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.1 California law requires strict compliance with these safeguards and Colonial Penn has refused and continues to refuse to comply. According to the complaint, Colonial Penn has failed to properly administer policies, has failed to properly evaluate the status of payments due under policies and failed to properly pay claims to beneficiaries for policies lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium as a result. Indeed, from January of 2013 until the present, thousands of policy owners and beneficiaries have lost, and continue to lose, the benefit, value and security of their life insurance; have been, and continue to be, forced into unnecessary reinstatements; and in many instances have lost all reasonable access to any insurance at all. Ultimately, Colonial Penn has robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiaries of the investment in such policies, charged improper amounts for reinstatement, and denied policy benefits as well as the security intended to be provided from such insurance. Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company is a Pennsylvania-based life insurance company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org – and – Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Thervil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dukatlene Thervil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-60707-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., provides financial services. The Company offers first party outsourcing, check collectionn, skip tracing, billing services, and debt purchasing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Class Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Nino Koller, Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Consumer Reports, Inc., a New York nonprofit corporation, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02020-00011819-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 6, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00660-JLS-KSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Consumer Reports is an independent, nonprofit organization that works side by side with consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 623-4200 Fax: (858) 623-4299 Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert Anthony Cocchia, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 236-1414 Fax: (619) 232-8311 Email: Robert.Cocchia@dentons.com COVINGTON CREDIT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jones Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Jones, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. COVINGTON CREDIT OF TEXAS, INC. (d/b/a and/or a/k/a Covington Credit, SM Credit, and/or Southern Management Corporation), Case No. 3:20-cv-00798-K (N.D. Tex., April 6, 2020), is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in numerous seven-day workweeks as an employee of the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all of those hours worked over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek in the time period relevant to her claims. The Plaintiff worked as a branch network collector for the Defendant. Covington Credit is a small loan consumer finance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 Email: vaught@txlaborlaw.com CRM PROPERTY: Mendez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, FRANCISCO ALBERTO ACEVEDO MENDEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. CRM PROPERTY CORP., a Massachusetts Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10691-DLC (D. Mass., April 8, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws, CH. 149 Sections 148 and 150. Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt finishing carpenter with Defendant from approximately February 2017 and continuing through November 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during most work weeks for the period of his employment with Defendant. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to: -- compensate Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for those hours that he worked in excess of 40 hours per work week; -- compensate Plaintiff for the time he spent traveling to get supplies for the Defendant; and -- maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. CRM Property Corp. provides construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 12 Ericsson St., Suite 2F Boston, MA 02122 Tel: 857-383-4903 Fax: 857-383-4928 Email: kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com CRUNCH LLC: Chavez Seeks Proper Wages for Personal Trainers ----------------------------------------------------------- JORGE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRUNCH, LLC and DOES 1-100 Defendants, Case No. Case 3:20-cv-02362 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff and all others similarly situated sick pay and/or paid time off ("PTO") at regular rate of pay, all wages earned at time of their termination, all split shift premiums, reporting time pay, meal period premium pay, as well as rest break premium pay as required by California law. Defendants implemented a policy of forcing Plaintiffs and Class members to work off the clock and failing to pay them all minimum wages and overtime wages earned. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with itemized wage statements containing the correct hourly rates for sick pay and/or PTO and therefore, also failed to provide itemized wage statements listing the accurate amount of gross and net wages earned during the pay period. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee with the job title of personal trainer. CRUNCH, LLC is a California-based company in the business of owning and operating gymnasiums and providing fitness related products to the general public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashwin Ladva, Esq. Scott S. Nakama, Esq. LADVA LAW FIRM 530 Jackson Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 296-8844 Facsimile: (415) 296-8847 Email: Ladvalaw@gmail.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Souza Sues Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects --------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02930 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for various law violations including the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the New York False Advertising Act, and the State Consumer Frauds Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engaged in deceptive and false advertising by failing to disclose the harmful side effects caused by its DevaCurl hair care products. The Defendant advertises the products as safe, natural and free from harsh ingredients and designed to moisturize, nourish and strengthen hair. However, several consumer complaints have emerged that the products caused hair loss, hair damage, balding, and scalp injury. The Plaintiff claims that she would not have purchased the products had she known about the harmful side effects. Deva Concepts, LLC is a manufacturer of hair care products with its principal place of business at 560 Broadway, Suite 206, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW GROUP P.C. 1501 Broadway, Suite 1915 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 767-2271 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com - and - J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Alia M. Abdi, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com alia.abdi@zimmreed.com DEVON ENERGY: Price Seeks Overtime Pay for Utility Inspectors ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PRICE, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00316-GBW-GJF (D. N.M., April 8, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Utility Inspector from approximately August 2016 until October 2017 and regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated utility inspectors overtime for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages. Devon Energy Corporation operates as an independent energy company that is involved primarily in oil and gas exploration, development and production, the transportation of oil, gas, and NGLs and the processing of natural gas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Wants to Stop Excessive Rents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Cobb Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dominium Management Services, LLC, St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, Limited Partnership, St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates U, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-20-4576 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., March 18, 2020), seeks permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from charging rents in excess of fair market rent for all current and future Legends tenants. According to the complaint, since 2015, the Defendant has unlawfully overcharged rent to dozens of low-income senior citizens living in an apartment complex in St. Anthony, Minnesota-The Legends at Silver Lake. Dominium has imposed rents well above statutorily mandated limits even as it falsely assured tenants that it was complying with the required rent limits. According to the complaint, when Dominium was confronted last year with evidence that it had overcharged rent to Legends tenants for years, it refused to either refund the overcharges to tenants or comply with the rent limits going forward. The Plaintiff files this class action to stop Dominium unlawful conduct and remedy the harm caused to the tenants. Linda Cobb Thompson has been a tenant since 2015 at The Legends at Silver Lake, an apartment complex at 2500 3rd Avenue NE, in St. Anthony, Minnesota, which is in Ramsey County. The Defendants are all associated with a business enterprise called "Dominium." Dominium is private affordable housing developers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Prentiss Cox, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONSUMER PROTECTION CLINIC 190 Mondale Hall 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Telephone: 612 625-5515 Facsimile: 612 624-5771 - and - Margaret Kaplan, Esq. John Cann, Esq. Timothy Thompson, Esq. James Poradek, Esq. HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER 382 Banfil Street. St. Paul, MN 55102 Telephone: 612 600-4028 E-mail: mkaplan@hjcmn.org jcann@hjcmn.org tthompson@hjcmn.org jporadek@hjcmn.org DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Rickenbaker Suit Over Tuition Fee Refund ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRAINGER RICKENBAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01358-BHH (D.S.C., April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant has failed and continues to fail to adequately and fully refund him and all others similarly-situated, tuition fees and other mandatory fees that they already paid for the 2020 Spring Semester. The Defendant has been unable to provide the contracted for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities due to its closure following the COVID-19 pandemic. Drexel University is an institution of higher learning located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Gizze, on behalf of himself and other employees and former employees of Defendant similarly situated v. DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., and ROY F. DUNWORTH, Case No. 2:20-cv-14104-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri's Minimum Wage Laws. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was never paid overtime. At various times, Mr. Gizze did inquire, but was advised that overtime was not available. He was told that he was exempt as a salaried employee. The Plaintiff was paid straight time and expected to work in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours exceeding 40 hours per week. Mr. Gizze was employed by the Defendants on a construction crew since January 2019. Defendant, DC, is a corporation of the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Address, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STUART M. ADDRESS, P.A. 611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A Stuart, FL 34994 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (772) 781-8003 Facsimile: (772) 781-8005 Email: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com E-HOUSE CHINA: Maso Capital et al. Sue Over 2016 Merger ------------------------------------------------------- MASO CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLACKWELL PARTNERS LLC – SERIES A, and CROWN MANAGED ACCOUNTS SPC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CROWN/MASO SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. E-HOUSE (CHINA) HOLDINGS LIMITED, XIN ZHOU, NEIL NANPENG SHEN, E-HOUSE HOLDINGS LTD., CHARLES CHAO, BING XIANG, HONGCHAO ZHU, JEFFREY ZENG, WINSTON LI, DAVID JIAN SUN, CANHAO HUANG, SINA CORPORATION, KANRICH HOLDINGS LIMITED, ON CHANCE, INC., JUN HENG INVESTMENT LIMITED, SMART CREATE GROUP LIMITED, and SMART MASTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02943 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of former owners of E-House American Depository Receipts (ADS), who sold their shares from April 15, 2016 until August 31, 2016, allege that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about their stock merger deal, where each ADS would be bought for $6.85 per ADS. The Defendants claim the deal was fair and in the best interest of investors, although there were no plans for post-merger transactions, and that the proxies' published projections as the best available. The Plaintiffs and Class members contend that the Defendants' fraudulent scheme aimed for them to accept the deal on August 12, 2016. After the merger, E-House relisted a portion of its business at a price reflecting a valuation far higher than the $6.85 per ADS. The Defendants' wrongful act caused losses and damages to the Plaintiff and Class members. E-House (China) Holdings Limited is a real estate services company with principal place of business located at 11/F, Yinli Building, 383 Guangyan Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, China. E-House Holdings Ltd. is an operator of real estate businesses. It was founded through a merger deal entered by E-House (China) Holdings Limited. SINA Corporation is a technology company based in Beijing, China. Kanrich Holdings Limited is a business company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. On Chance, Inc. is a business company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Jun Heng Investment Limited is a business company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Smart Create Group Limited is a business company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Smart Master International Limited is a business company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com FAMILY VENTURES: Igoe Hits Insufficient Vehicle Reimbursement ------------------------------------------------------------- John Diedrich Igoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Family Ventures 1 LLC and Kerri-Lea Hayman, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01123, (D. S.C., March 21, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores throughout South Carolina and Georgia where Igoe worked as a delivery driver. Delivery drivers use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their customers. Igoe claims that their vehicle expense reimbursement rates are insufficient causing their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 210-2100 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com - and - Jake Modla, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C. 454 S Anderson Rd., Suite 303 Rock Hill, SC 29730 Telephone: (803) 328-0898 Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Remand of Walters Suit to State Court Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, GREGORY WALTERS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FAMOUS TRANSPORTS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-08016-YGR (N.D. Cal.), to state court. On Oct. 15, 2019, Plaintiffs Gregory Walters and Christi Walters filed the putative class-action lawsuit against Defendants Famous, Panther II Transportation, Inc, ArcBest Logistics, Inc., and ArcBest Corp. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, captioned Walters, et. al. v. Famous Transports, Inc., et. al., Case No. CGC-19-579980 ("State Court Action"). The Plaintiffs commenced the action for the Defendants' failure to provide (1) required meal periods, and (2) required rest periods; failure to pay (3) overtime wages, (4) minimum wage, and (5) all wages due to discharges or quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain records; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; (9) unlawful deductions from wages; (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (12) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) asserts class claims against the Defendants as set forth. The CAC defines the putative class as follows: All current and former drivers, including but not limited to those misclassified as independent contractors, who performed work for Defendants in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time the action settles or proceeds to final judgment. As noted in the class definition, the statutory period begins four years prior to the filing of the action to the date of final judgment. The CAC does not allege the amount of monetary damages sought by the class, consistent with California practice. The Defendants filed their notice of removal on Dec. 6, 2019, asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 based on original jurisdiction as provided by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. In so filing, they alleged that the amount in controversy was "over $5 million." On Jan. 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for remand citing three grounds: namely, that Defendants failed (1) to provide evidence or even allege that the purported 100 putative class members ever drove in California as specified in the Plaintiffs' class definition; (2) to proffer evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; and (3) to meet their burden of proof showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In the Plaintiffs' reply, they concede that, in light of the evidence filed alongside the opposition, the Defendants have now sufficiently demonstrated that there are more than 100 putative class members; however, the Plaintiffs the remaining two grounds. Specifically, the Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants have inappropriately calculated the amount by aggregating all deductions the Defendants made from the Plaintiffs' and the class members' pay, rather than by limiting the amount of the Plaintiffs' deductions claims to work performed in the State of California. Judge Rogers agrees that the Defendants' calculations, including all relief available to the class members for work performed in and outside the state of California, are appropriately based on the allegations in the CAC. The Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary do not persuade. First, the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments that the narrow class definition supports its interpretation of the allegations that the relief sought is limited to California. Though the proposed class definition limits the membership of the class to drivers who, at some point, performed work in California, nothing in the CAC limits the geographic reach of the conduct that the Plaintiffs' claim violated California law and the damages they seek for that allegedly unlawful conduct. Second, the Plaintiffs' own arguments, that damages are limited to only work performed in California but also include work performed by California residents in other states, is unsupported by the allegations of CAC. These arguments illogically seek to carve out an exception -- work performed by non-California citizens out of the state of California -- that is otherwise not supported by the allegations. The Plaintiffs cannot now escape their inartful pleadings as to the geographic scope of damages incurred by the class with post-hoc arguments and characterizations. Accordingly, because the Court has concluded that the Defendants have appropriated based their calculations as to the amount in controversy on the allegations in the CAC, it will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/xmYa26 from Leagle.com. Gregory Walters, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Christi Walters, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Joseph Bass -- daniel@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm APC, Roy Karngwon Suh, The Kick Law Firm, APC & Taras Peter Kick, The Kick Law Firm, APC. Panther II Transportation, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, ArcBest Logistics, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation & ArcBest Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, Christopher James Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, E. Ashley Paynter -- APAYNTER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary, P.C., pro hac vice & James Anthony Eckhart -- JECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary. FINANCE SYSTEMS: Forman Sues in S.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance Systems of Richmond, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Forman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Finance Systems of Richmond, Inc. dba Finance Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00127-TMR (S.D. Ohio, April 6, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Finance System, Inc., is a third generation family owned and operated accounts receivable management company delivering service since 1955.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 800-5529 Fax: (216) 514-4987 Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com FORMULA 5: Tenley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------- Hardin Tenley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Formula 5 Capital, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02571 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Formula 5 Capital, Inc. operates as Formula Funding, an online advertising company. Tenley claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Formula on his phone despite being registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP: Lee Sues Over Excessive Charges ------------------------------------------------------ Phillip Lee and Patti Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 20-cv-01970, (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020), seeks damages for breach of contract and for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California Business and Professions Code. Freedom Mortgage services mortgages across the country. Phillip and Patti Lee's home located in Salinas, Monterey County CA is serviced by Freedom. Lee claims that Freedom Mortgage charges borrowers between $10.00–15.00 for making their mortgage payments online or over the phone which was not stipulated in their contract. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hank Bates, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR, 72201 Tel. (501) 312-8500 Fax. (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Todd A. Walburg, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 610 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 207-8633 Email: twalburg@baileyglasser.com FS HOTELS: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay, Rest & Meal Periods for Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FS HOTELS LA, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV13849 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Labor Code Section 226.7 and the Industrial Welfare Commission Order 12-2001, Section 12(A). The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated hotel employees, alleges that the Defendants failed to provide them with duty-free rest and meal periods, failed to pay them all minimum wages and overtime compensation, and also failed to reimburse them for any employment-related expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hotel employee. FS Hotels LA, Inc. is a company that owned and operated the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at Beverly Hills in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Stephen F. Biegenzahn, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Flawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com steve@rastegarlawgroup.com FUSION PHARMACY: Katz Balks at Unsolicited Fax Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------- The case BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Juva Skin and Laser Center, a New York professional corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. FUSION PHARMACY, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and FUSION SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC., a Utah corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02907 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020) challenges Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On or about January 17, 2020, Defendants sent Plaintiff an unsolicited fax that describes the commercial availability and/or quality of Defendants' property, goods or services, namely, Defendants' "GENERIC ACCUTANE(R) / ISOTRETINOIN," and other pharmaceuticals. Defendants' unsolicited faxes have damaged Plaintiff and the class in that a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would have been spent on something else. A junk fax intrudes into the recipient's seclusion and violates the recipient's right to privacy. Unsolicited faxes occupy fax lines, prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class who were sent the Fax and other unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent without prior express invitation or permission and without compliant opt-out language. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA and injunctive relief. Fusion Pharmacy, LLC is a Utah-based management company providing access to pharmacy benefits with low or no out-of-pocket cost at the pharmacy for those injured in an auto accident. Fusion Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. is dedicated to formulating creative, individualized, and compounded medications that can improve compliance, maximize the potential for therapeutic success and reduce the overall cost of healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 Email: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com – and – Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847-368-1500 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Appeals March 5 Judgment to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Adele Varga filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Varga v. General Electric Company, Case No. 18-cv-1449, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that for years, the Defendant improperly manipulated its earnings and inflated its stock price by improperly under reserving for the insurance liabilities of its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries. The Plaintiff and putative class members, believing that GE's publicly traded stock price reflected the company's financial strength and the GE Stock Fund was a prudent investment option, continued to save for retirements by investing their contributions and matching funds in the GE Stock Fund. On January 16, 2018, GE announced that it had under reserved for the insurance liabilities of its two insurance subsidiaries by approximately $15 billion, and that it needed to contribute approximately $15 billion to its insurance subsidiaries, all of which had a materially negative impact on earnings. Shortly thereafter, GE also announced that the SEC was investigating the $15 billion shortfall. The value of GE common stock dropped on the news and has continued moving downward as GE has disclosed even more financial problems. In August 2009, GE's common stock traded at roughly $14 per share and then steadily rose from August 2009 to June 2017, reaching a high in July 2016 of nearly $33 per share. The appellate case is captioned as Varga v. General Electric Company, Case No. 20-1144, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Adele Varga, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Charles J. Crueger, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: 414-410-3900 Email: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com Defendants–Appellees General Electric Company; Jeffrey Robert Immelt, are represented by: Nicholas John D'Ambrosio, Jr., Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 22 Corporate Woods Boulevard Albany, NY 12211 Telephone: 518-533-3214 Email: ndambrosio@bsk.com GENERAL NUTRITION CORP: Clausen Suit Transferred to New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dale Clausen and Timothy Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with the assigned Case No. 2:20-mc-00464 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on April 8, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-mc-00186-LGS. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud. General Nutrition Corporation distributes health and wellness products. The Company offers vitamins and minerals, herbal supplements, beauty, and weight loss products. General Nutrition provides its products to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Christina, Esq. Lowey Dannenberg, P.C Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (914) 733-7268 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: achristina@lowey.com The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Bevans, Esq. 45 Broadway 16th Floor New York City, NY 10006 Email: rbevans@cozen.com - and – Mark E. Utke, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-2164 Email: mutke@cozen.com GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Brighton Trustees Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. The case is styled as Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and trustee of Diamond LS Trust, Bank of Utah solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240-HEH (E.D. Va., April 6, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as insurance for breach of contract. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company offers annuity and life insurance underwriting services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellen D. Marcus, Esq. Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, Esq. HOLMES COSTIN & MARCUS PLLC 301 N Fairfax St., Suite 202 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 260-6401 Fax: (703) 439-1873 Email: emarcus@hcmlawva.com kholmes@hcmlawva.com H. BEST LTD: Nisbett Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind --------------------------------------------------------- Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. H. Best, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02382 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. H. Best, Ltd. is an online retailer of clothing and skincare for men and women operating as "2(x)ist" and through its website, www.2xist.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com HAYCO CORP: Huitzil et al. Seek Proper Pay for Superintendents -------------------------------------------------------------- PERFECTO HUITZIL, ROGELIO HUITZIL, FRANCISCO DIAZ, FRANCISCO DIAZ III, OBISPO MONTERO, JESUS ROJAS and SIXTO REYNOSO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- HAYCO CORP., ALEX HAY, and FRED HAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02940 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and Comp. Codes R. & Regs (NYCCRR); (iii) the wage deductions provisions of NYLL; (iv) the requirement that employers furnish employees with a written statement at the time of hiring containing specific categories of information under the NYLL, as codified as the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "NYWTPA"); (v) the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of accurate information under the NYLL; and (vi) the anti-retaliation provisions of the NYLL; and any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. Plaintiffs are superintendents who have worked for properties owned and//or managed by Defendants at various times between 2000 and the present. Hayco Corp. is a New York-based real estate company specializing in multi-residential rentals. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 406-6890 Email: chaya@norinsberglaw.com – and – Gregg A. Waxman, Esq. THE WAXMAN LAW FIRM 1051 Port Washington Blvd Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 468-6888 Facsimile: (516) 468-6889 Email: gregg@waxmanfirm.com HERB & DEE'S: Staub et al. Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- KORI STAUB and MORGAN JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERB & DEE'S BREAK ROOM SOCIAL CLUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant during the three-year period to provide services at the pool hall and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The complaint alleges that current and former employees of Defendants, including Plaintiffs, were not compensated at a rate of at or above the minimum wage and were not paid overtime at one and one half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours each workweek. Instead, Defendant compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in the form of tips. Herb & Dee's Break Room Social Club, Inc. owns and operates a pool hall located at 1408 W. Marshall Ave. Suite A, Longview, Texas 75604. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Kolder, Esq. Archer K. Ramey, Esq. RAMEY & FLOCK LAW FIRM 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 404 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: (903)597-3301 Fax: (903)597-2413 Emails: ekolder@rameyflock.com aramey@rameyflock.com HOT TOPIC: Class Settlement in Soukhaphohn Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIANA SOUKHAPHONH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOT TOPIC, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV 16-5124-DMG (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Incentive Award. The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Accordingly, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Court has certified the Settlement Class, defined as all Persons who received one or more text messages sent by or on behalf of Defendant Hot Topic to a cellular phone between Aug. 1, 2012 and July 26, 2019. The Court further gave final approval to the Settlement Agreement. It finds that the Settlement Agreement meets the fair, reasonable, adequate standard, and is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Court awarded to the Class Counsel the amount of $835,800 in attorneys' fees and $100,000 as reimbursement for costs. The Court also approved the payment of an incentive award in the amount of $15,000 to Diana Soukhaphonh to compensate her for her efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class. All payments made to the Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within 180 days of issuance will be void. In the event uncashed check funds allow for a subsequent distribution of Cash Awards of $1 or more per claimant, after administration costs, a subsequent distribution of payments to the Settlement Class Members will be made. In the event the amount of uncashed check funds does not allow for a subsequent distribution of $1.00 or more per claimant, then the remaining uncashed funds will be distributed as directed by the Court upon application made by the Settlement Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel for such funds to be distributed to a charitable organization, selected by the Parties, concerned with consumer protection issues of the general character presented by thes Action such that the charitable organization's work coincides, or at least overlaps, with the interests of the Settlement Class. Except as otherwise set forth in the Order, the Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/VvTLgV from Leagle.com. Diana Soukhaphonh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ahdoot -- rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina Wolfson, -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick E. Gonya, Carey Rodriguez Milan Gonya LLP, pro hac vice & Ruben Conitzer, Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP, pro hac vice. Hot Topic, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Anne-Marie D. Dao, Troutman Sanders LLP, Arameh Zargham O'Boyle, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Joshua M. Briones, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Kathryn Lafferty Ignash -- KLIgnash@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC & E. Crystal Lopez -- ECLopez@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC. HP: Gould Questions Decision to Block Xerox Buyout -------------------------------------------------- James R. Gould, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aida Alvarez, Shumeet Banerji, Robert R. Bennett, Chip Bergh, Stacy Brownphilpot, Stephanie A. Burns, Mary Anne Citrino, Richard L. Clemmer, Enrique Lores, Yoky Matsuoka, Stacey Mobley, Subra Suresh and Dion J. Weisler, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00244 (D. Del., February 20, 2020) seeks judgment on the pleadings and an order requiring the Defendants to disclose a full and fair summary of the analysis underlying the Inadequacy Opinions with regards to the acquisition of HP Inc. by Xerox Holdings Corporation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 2, 2020, Xerox commenced the Tender Offer to acquire all outstanding shares of HP common stock for consideration comprised of $18.40 in cash and 0.149 shares of Xerox common stock. The HP board recommended that HP stockholders reject Xerox's tender offer. Gould claims that the HP board failed to provide the legally required financial analyses supporting the Inadequacy Opinions in support of their recommendation that HP stockholders not tender their shares into the Tender Offer and omitted a fair summary information material to stockholders. HP is a global provider of personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions and services. Defendants are the board of the directors of said company. Gould is a stockholder of HP and has owned HP common stock. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Email: markl@blbglaw.com Jacqueline.Ma@blbglaw.com - and - Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Tel: (888) 529-1108 Email: jfriedman@fotpllc.com dtejtel@fotpllc.com - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Tel: (484) 258-1585 Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com - and - Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 364-3601 Email: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com INTUIT INC: Deceives Taxpayers With TurboTax, Williams Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTUIT INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01908-JSC (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020), arises from Intuit's campaign to intentionally divert and deceive lower income taxpayers, who are eligible to receive free tax preparation and filing services under the United States Internal Revenue Service's Free File program, to its paid TurboTax products. TurboTax is a tax preparation software owned and manufactured by Intuit. TurboTax is utilized to file more than 36 million tax returns for taxpayers every year. Pursuant to an agreement with the IRS, TurboTax and other tax preparation providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income the option to file their taxes for free. The agreement was specifically designed so that the IRS would not need to create its own free online filing system. According to the government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual user or to the public treasury." The Plaintiff contends that Intuit has long been luring customers into paying for a service that it promised the government and consumers it would give away for free. Intuit Inc. is an American business and financial software company that develops and sells financial, accounting, and tax preparation software and related services for small businesses, accountants, and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com KALYAN HOSPITALITY: Underpays Salaried Hotel Staff, Pinon Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BRANDON PINON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KALYAN HOSPITALITY, LLC, KALYAN HOSPITALITY, LLC II, and ROANOKE AIRPORT HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00205-EKD (W.D. Va., April 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a General Manager at the Holiday Inn Roanoke on or about February 1, 2019 until January 27, 2020. The complaint says that Plaintiff and other similarly situated exempt hotel staff were paid on a salary basis by Defendants and were required to work more than 40 hours in a week, otherwise they will be subjected to salary deduction if they work less than 50 hours per week. Due to Defendants' actual policy improper wage deductions, Plaintiff and other hotel staffs were deprived of lawful overtime compensation. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wage compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Roanoke Airport Hotel Partners, LLC is a hotel owned and operated by Kalyan and/or Kalyan II. Kalyan Hospitality, LLC and Kalyan Hospitality, LLC II are a full-service, Virginia based company providing management, development, consulting, and accounting expertise for the hospitality industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq. STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Ave., S.W., Suite 330 Roanoke, VA 24011 Tel: (540)283-0802 Emails: brittany@strelkalaw.com thomas@strelkalaw.com leigh@strelkalaw.com - and – Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia St., Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804)648-4848 Fax: (804)237-0413 Emails: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Advisor Group Merger-Related Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action shareholder complaint in Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court. On November 11, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the company, Advisor Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Advisor Group"), and Harvest Merger Sub, Inc., a Florida corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Advisor Group ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub would be merged with and into us (the "Merger"). On January 30, 2020, the company's shareholders voted to approve the Merger. In January 2020, a purported class action shareholder complaint was filed against the Company, its former directors, Advisor Group, Harvest Merger Sub, Inc. and AG Artemis Holdings, LP ("Artemis") in Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court. The complaint alleges that the director defendants received benefits from the Company's merger with Merger Sub not shared by the plaintiff and class members, agreed to an unfair merger price and solicited shareholder approval through allegedly materially misleading proxy materials and that the director defendants therefore breached their fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges Advisor Group, Merger Sub and Artemis aided and abetted the fiduciary breaches alleged in the complaint. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and the disgorgement by the defendants of all unique consideration received in the merger. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. LOUISIANA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Little Detainees Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs in the case, EDWARD LITTLE, ET AL., v. THOMAS FREDERICK, ET AL, Civil Action No. 6:17-0724 (W.D. La.) The case is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiffs Edward Little and Shelia Ann Murphy against Defendants Frederick, Commissioner of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, and Judge Kristian Earles, former Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court. The matter has been certified as a class action. The Plaintiffs have been designated as joint lead Plaintiffs. They brought the action on behalf of themselves and members of the class of all people who are or will be detained in the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center because they are unable to pay a sum of money required by post-arrest secured money bail setting procedures. Mr. Little was arrested on June 3, 2017, on a charge of felony theft and detained at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center ("LPCC"). On the following day, Commissioner Frederick determined probable cause for his arrest and set his bail as a $3,000 secured bond. Mr. Little could not afford to pay that amount and remained incarcerated until June 10, 2017. Ms. Murphy was arrested on Feb. 3, 2018, on a charge of felony possession of narcotics and two related misdemeanors. She was detained at the LPCC. Commissioner Frederick determined probable cause for Murphy's arrest and set her bail as a $2,500 secured bond. She then appeared via closed-circuit television at a 72-hour hearing before Commissioner Frederick, in which he affirmed the bond amount. Ms. Murphy could not afford that amount of bond and remained incarcerated until Feb. 10, 2018. Commissioner Frederick is the Commissioner for Louisiana's Fifteenth Judicial District. In that role, he makes the initial bail determinations for all arrestees in Lafayette, Vermillion, and Acadia Parishes. Defendant Judge Kristian Earles, former Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, promulgated the bail schedule previously used by the District. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses by the application of policies that result in the jailing of persons because of their inability to make a monetary payment. They further contend that the Defendants violated their fundamental rights to pretrial liberty by placing and keeping them in jail because they cannot afford to pay the monetary bail amount set, without inquiry into and findings concerning ability to pay or non-financial alternative conditions. The Plaintiffs request that the Court issue the following relief: (1) An order and judgment permanently enjoining the Defendants from using money bail to detain any person without procedures that ensure an inquiry into and findings concerning the person's ability to pay any monetary amount set and without an inquiry into and findings concerning non-financial alternative conditions of release; and (2) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by setting secured financial conditions of release without inquiring into or making findings as to whether arrestees can pay the amounts set, and without considering non-financial alternative conditions of release. The Court took the matter in August 2019 under advisement and instructed both parties to submit post-trial supplemental briefs. After the transcript was complete, on Sept. 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their post-trial brief. On Dec. 3, 2019, after an extension of time, the Defendants filed their post-trial brief. On Dec. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. The Court finds that the stipulated facts and Commissioner Frederick's testimony at trial, which the Court finds credible, establish that the Fifteenth Judicial District Court and Commissioner Frederick have adopted practices that render the Plaintiffs' initial claims moot. At the time that the Plaintiffs filed suit, a 2013 bail schedule governed the release of certain misdemeanor offenses. However, in February 2018, the judges of the Fifteenth Judicial District issued an en banc order rescinding the previous schedule. Since that time, the Defendants have not used a bail schedule, and there is no evidence to suggest that they would return to its use after two years. Likewise, at the time Plaintiffs filed suit, Commissioner Frederick did not obtain or consider the financial information provided by the PIDA or at the First Appearance hearing or consider alternative options. While it is undisputed that changes took place after the lawsuit was initiated, the evidence shows that the judges further modified the first order, and the Defendants have continued to make additional changes to address any remaining constitutional issues since February 2018. Therefore, the Court finds that, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the bail schedule and the Defendants' prior practices, their claim is moot. The Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs' prior claims based on the automatic imposition of bail under the prior bail schedule and under Commissioner Frederick's prior practices are moot. The Plaintiffs' remaining claims do not raise substantive, but procedural due process concerns. Therefore, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs as to their substantive due process claim. As for the Plaintiffs procedural due process claims, the Court finds that the current procedures now result in the automatic release of most misdemeanor arrestees, which is more than the Constitution requires. For the remaining more serious misdemeanor and for felonies, contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, the Court finds that there is a greater government interest in ensuring their future appearance and lawful behavior. Even so, the Court finds that the Defendants have provided adequate procedural protection to these arrestees to ensure that their liberty interests are being protected, and they are not being held solely because of their indigency. Therefore, no declaratory or injunctive relief is warranted. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs on the procedural due process claims, the Court rules. Finally, as for the Plaintiffs asserted equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Court has considered whether the Defendants' orders, policies, and practices are "narrowly tailored" to address their compelling interest in assuring the "future appearance and lawful behavior" of the more serious misdemeanor and felony arrestees. For the reasons identified, the Court finds that they are so narrowly tailored. Most misdemeanor arrestees go free, regardless of wealth (or lack thereof) under current practices. As to the remaining arrestees, there are two opportunities for Commissioner Frederick to consider their financial condition. If they have provided the PIDA, Commissioner Frederick considers that information during his call to the jail, along with his personal knowledge of the economics of most criminal defendants in the Fifteenth Judicial District. That is not all, however, because within 72 hours he provides the arrestees a second opportunity to inform him they cannot afford bail at the First Appearance hearing. If they inform him that they cannot afford bail, he turns to the Modification Form to see if there are alternatives he can offer to each particular arrestee. This individualized consideration, along with the other facts set forth, are sufficiently narrowly tailored to address the Defendants' lawful concerns. Judgment is also entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs on their equal protection claim, the Court rules. In sum, Judge Doughty entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/aJCV1P from Leagle.com. Edward Little, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles L. Gerstein, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice, Eric Halperin, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice, James William Craig, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center & Eric A. Foley -- eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org -- Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Sheila Ann Murphy, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Charles L. Gerstein, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice, James William Craig, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center & Eric A. Foley, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Thomas Frederick & Kristian Earles, Defendants, represented by James Garrison Evans, LA Dept of Justice & Andre Charles Castaing, LA Dept of Justice. LUCKIN COFFEE: Misleads Securities Buyers, Gopu et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ VIJAYA GOPU and NIRMALA GOPU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, JIAN LIU, REINOUT HENDRIK SCHAKEL, HUI LI, JINYI GUO, ERHAI LIU, SEAN SHAO, THOMAS P. MEIER, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORP. HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD., HAITONG INT’L SECURITIES CO. LTD., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01747 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Luckin Coffee Inc. between May 17, 2019 and April 6, 2020, allege that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses in connection with the company's initial public offering in May 2019 and secondary offering in January 2020. Defendants consistently stated they had been able to develop adequate controls and procedures to manage rapid growth while at the same time, being on a path to profitability, which caused a huge increase in the price of the Luckin Coffee's shares during the Class period. As a result of Defendants' illegal and improper course of conduct and their fraud being revealed, Luckin's share price fell over 80%, which caused losses and damages to the Plaintiffs and Class members. Luckin Coffee Inc. is a Chinese coffee company and coffeehouse chain based in Xiamen, China. Needham & Company, LLC is a New York-based independent investment bank and asset management firm specializing in advisory services and financings. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a New York City-based financial services company. China International Capital Corp. Hong Kong Securities Ltd. is a Beijing, China-based financial services company. Haitong International Securities Co. Ltd. is a stock brokerage firm and investment bank based in Hong Kong. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a financial services company located in New York, New York. Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. is a Cleveland, Ohio-based company that provides investment advisory services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 LYFT INC: Seeks First Circuit Review of Ruling in Cunningham Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John Zimmer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham, is a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs. The appellate case is captioned as Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1373, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appearance form is due on April 20, 2020; -- Docketing Statement is due on April 20, 2020; and -- Transcript Report/Order form is due on April 20, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anne R. Kramer, Esq. Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LITCHEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC 729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-994-5800 E-mail: akramer@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com Defendants-Appellants LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN and JOHN ZIMMER are represented by: Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq. Elaine Goldenberg, Esq. MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP 1155 F St. NW, 7th Flr. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-220-1000 E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com Goldenberg@mto.com - and - Justin P. Raphael, Esq. Rohit Singla, Esq. MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission St., 27th Flr San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: 415-512-4085 E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com rohit.singla@mto.com - and - Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq. MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 S Grand Ave., 50th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: 213-683-9100 E-mail: jeffrey.wu@mto.com - and - Michael T. Maroney, Esq. David J. Santeusanio, Esq. Andrew E. Silvia, Esq. James D. Smeallie, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 Saint James Ave., 11th Flr. Boston, MA 02116-0000 Telephone: 617-523-2700 E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com jd.smeallie@hklaw.com MAINTENX INT'L: Binion Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Maintenance Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ GARY BINION, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. MAINTENX INTERNATIONAL SERVICE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV1354 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all minimum and overtime wages, as well as all meal and rest period premium wages that resulted to inaccurate payroll records, failure to issue accurate and itemized wage statements, and failure to pay all wages owed at the time of the separation of employment with Defendants. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt Electrician and/or Maintenance worker beginning in approximately August 2017 through approximately March 2019. MaintenX International Service Management Group, Inc. is a total facility maintenance company serving national multi-site retailers, restaurants and Fortune 500 companies across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Diana M. Martinez, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com dmartinez@haineslawgroup.com MDL 2433: Dupont Can't Modify Expert Affirmative Causation Opinions ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation case, IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document relates to: Angela Swartz and Teddy Swartz v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00136, Civil Action No. 2:13-md-2433 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied DuPont's request to, during the trial, modify its experts' affirmative causation opinions. The matter is before the Court on Defendant DuPont's Brief Regarding its Specific Causation Experts, and the Plaintiffs' Response to DuPont's Brief. The trial in the case began on Jan. 21, 2020. At the end of the first day of trial, after the jury was selected and released for the day, the parties reviewed with the Court several issues related to the opening statements that would be given the following day. During that time, DuPont raised a topic related to its specific causation experts offered in the Swartz case: Samuel M. Cohen, M.D., Ph.D. and Douglas M. Dahl, M.D., who were both the subject of motions to exclude under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. DuPont offered Dr. Cohen and Dr. Dahl to opine on the specific cause of Mrs. Swartz's kidney cancer and to critique her specific causation expert's opinion. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude these two experts' affirmative specific causation opinions. Although the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the affirmative causation opinions of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Dahl, DuPont indicated that its view of the Court's decision was that the Court ruled out one of several bases for their opinions but the Court didn't rule out their entire decisions. The Plaintiffs disagreed. After some discussion, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on the issue. The following day, at the Jan. 22, 2020, 8:30 a.m. conference, the Court addressed the specific causation issue, upon which the parties had not come to agreement. Discussing the issue with the parties, the Court stated that the opinions and conclusions of the experts' have been stricken, and any new or modified opinion offered during trial would violate all of the Court's pretrial scheduling orders and give the opposing side "no chance of rebuttal, or more discovery. Nevertheless, it was inclined to hear DuPont's arguments in more depth but was unable to do so without delaying the trial scheduled to begin the same day. Therefore, the Court offered DuPont the opportunity to provide a brief informing the Court of exactly what DuPont expects the witness to say and why the Court's order didn't exclude it. DuPont requested permission to file the brief the following Monday, which the Court granted. The Plaintiffs were permitted to file a response two days later. The parties timely filed their briefs addressing the testimony DuPont proposes to elicit from its specific causation experts and why that testimony was not previously excluded in EMO 28. By way of background, affirmative causation opinions were offered in the case. In EMO 28, the Court excluded the affirmative specific causation opinions as violative of the Leach Settlement Agreement. DuPont now contends that its specific causation expert should be allowed to give the opinion that Mrs. Swartz's kidney cancer was caused by her decades of high blood pressure and decades of medical obesity, and would have occurred without any exposure to C8 in drinking water. DuPont reiterates the arguments it made in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions that its experts expressly ruled in C8 as capable of causing Mrs. Swartz's kidney cancer, and never ruled C8 out. The Plaintiffs respond that the Court should not permit DuPont's experts to offer these opinions because (1) the opinions have already been specifically excluded in EMO 28 and (2) part of the brief offers "a newly modified opinion to which they would have to investigate, respond, call new trial witnesses, and potentially brief for Daubert motions, all while in the middle of the trial in which this modified position would actually be used. The Plaintiffs' arguments are well taken, Judge Sargus holds. Initially, he addresses the Plaintiffs' assertion that the testimony DuPont seeks to elicit is new -- that is, the opinion now removes Mrs. Swartz's relative risk altogether. It would be patently unfair to permit DuPont's experts to modify their opinions during trial and it would be impossible for the Court to reopen discovery and briefing on the new opinion during trial. On this basis alone, the Judge excludes the new, untimely opinion testimony DuPont seeks to elicit from Dr. Cohen or Dr. Dahl. DuPont, however, continues to make the choice to ask its experts to dissect and analyze the Science Panel's Reports in a way that undermines general causation. The Judge finds that while there was a No Probable Link Finding issued for prostate cancer, the Science Panel found an increased risk of prostate cancer for Leach Class members who resided in "highest water district" or that were in the "highest exposure category" when the individual level approach is used in the analysis. No expert may dissect the Probable Link Report in an effort to undermine the Science Panel's Finding that C-8, in the limitations of the study, is capable of causing kidney or testicular cancer. It is the Probable Link Finding that the parties contractually agreed would apply to all Leach Class members who can prove they have a Probable Link Disease. Judge Sargus denied DuPont's request to, during the trial, modify its experts' affirmative causation opinions. The Judge also clarified that EMO 28 did not merely rule out one of several bases for the experts' opinions, but rather excluded their entire affirmative causation opinions because the methodology utilized violated the Leach Settlement Agreement. DuPont does not have the burden of proving specific causation, so the exclusion does nothing to lessen Mrs. Swartz's burden. She must still prove that C-8 was a substantial contributing factor of her kidney cancer. DuPont's expert, while not permitted to testify as to what he ruled in or ruled out in his excluded differential diagnosis, or what he believes to be the more likely cause of Mrs. Swartz's cancer, may still offer critique on Mrs. Swartz's expert's opinion. That is, he may testify, as DuPont asks, that he does not believe Mrs. Swartz's expert placed an appropriate amount of weight on certain risk/causal factors such as obesity or high blood pressure because his interpretations of the scientific literature shows that certain BMI or a certain blood pressure increases the risk of kidney cancer by two-fold. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/D5wsDx from Leagle.com. Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold Collins, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker, Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, pro hac vice. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley -- aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP, Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long -- patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J. Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart -- kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice. MEET GROUP: Paskowitz Sues over Misleading SEC Proxy Statement -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SUSAN PASKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN CLIFTON, GEOFFREY COOK, CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH RICHMAN, BEDI SINGH, and JASON WHITT, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00481 (D. Del., April 7, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged false and misleading proxy statement in violations of the Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Act. Plaintiff owns Meet Group common stock. According to the complaint, Meet Group's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NuCom, eHarmony Holding, Inc., and Holly Merger Sub, Inc. on March 5, 2020 in which Meet Group's stockholders will receive $6.30 in cash for each share of Meet Group common stock they own. However, the Proxy Statement they filed on April 2, 2020 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Proposed Transaction was false and misleading because there were omitted material information. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose material information such as the Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor BofA Securities, Inc., and whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements, which are important for stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Individual Defendants Jean Clifton, Geoffrey Cook, Christopher Fralic, Spencer Rhodes, Keith Richman, Bedi Singh, and Jason Whitt are the company's Board of Directors. The Meet Group, Inc. provides interactive livestreaming solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)295-5310 Fax: (302)654-7530 Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2440 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212)867-1156 Fax: (212)504-8343 Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com MEET GROUP: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Post Claims ------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN CLIFTON, GEOFFREY COOK, CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH RICHMAN, BEDI SINGH, and JASON WHITT, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00479-UNA (D. Del., April 7, 2020) alleges Defendants have violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff owns Meet Group common stock. According to the complaint, Meet Group's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NuCom, eHarmony Holding, Inc., and Holly Merger Sub, Inc. on March 5, 2020 in which Meet Group's stockholders will receive $6.30 in cash for each share of Meet Group common stock they own. However, the Proxy Statement they filed on April 2, 2020 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Proposed Transaction was false and misleading because there were omitted material information. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose material information such as the Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor BofA Securities, Inc., and whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements, which are important for stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Individual Defendants Jean Clifton, Geoffrey Cook, Christopher Fralic, Spencer Rhodes, Keith Richman, Bedi Singh, and Jason Whitt are the company's Board of Directors. The Meet Group, Inc. provides interactive livestreaming solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)295-5310 Fax: (302)654-7530 Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484)324-6800 Fax: (484)631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Robinson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Meridian Financial Management Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00725-DKC (Md. Cir., Prince George's Cty., March 18, 2020), seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, costs and attorney's arising from the Defendant's debt collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff disputes that he owes any money to Diagnostic Imaging LLC. For over 5 years, Diagnostic Imaging LLC did not attempt to collect on these purported debts. Nor did any debt collector attempt to collect the debts on the Defendant's behalf. By letter dated July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff disputed the Meridian collection accounts with Equifax. In his dispute letter, the Plaintiff stated the debts may be older than 7 years old, and therefore, too old to appear on his report. He further stated the debts were uncollectible because they were older than 3 years old and, therefore, not legally enforceable. In conclusion, he requested the collection be removed as inaccurate or unverifiable, says the complaint. In 2018 Mr. Robinson obtained his Equifax credit report and discovered two collection accounts being reported by Meridian. According to the Equifax report, Meridian was collecting on two medical debts that originated with Diagnostic Imaging LLC. One of the Meridian collection accounts was opened on or before December 2012 and had an outstanding balance of $27. The other collection account was opened on or before January 2013 and had an outstanding balance of $153. Meridian is a debt collector based in Maryland. Meridian specializes in collecting medical debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Quinn B. Lobato, Esq. LOBATO LAW 210 Grisdale Hill Riva, MD 21140 Telephone: (240) 305-4770 E-mail: quinn.lobato@gmail.com MINNESOTA: Faces Evenstad Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schnell, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Evenstad, Nathan Braun, Representing a class of similarly situated prisoners classified as Violent Offenders that are incarcerated within the Minnesota Department of Corrections and are within six months of release, and representing a sub-class of prisoners similarly situated v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections; Michelle Smith, Deputy Commissioner; Nate Knutson, Deputy Commissioner; Karen Robinson, DOC Policy & Legal Services representative; Vicki Janssen, MCF-RC Warden; Jesse Pugh, Associate Warden; Minnesota Department of Corrections; State of Minnesota, Case No. 0:20-cv-00885-JRT-KMM (D. Minn., April 6, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights. Paul Schnell is the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] MONROE COUNTY, FL: Lola Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramsay, et al. The case is styled as David James Lola, Sean K. Bindrananth, Shane W. Wilson, individuals, each on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Rick Ramsay, Sheriff; Tim Age, Commander of Monroe County Detention Center; Monroe County Sheriff's Office; Monroe County, a Florida County; State of Florida, Case No. 4:20-cv-10032-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights. Sheriff Rick Ramsay is the most decorated deputy in the history of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, receiving ninety-three commendations of merit. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] NATIONAL CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Portnoy Partly Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALYSSA PORTNOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-834 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, (i) granted Defendant David Donnett's Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) granted Defendant Williamsburg of Cincinnati's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint and its Counterclaim; and (iii) granted in part Defendant National Credit System Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The matter centers on the proper interpretation of an apartment lease. On Aug. 19, 2016, Plaintiffs Alyssa and Darlene Portnoy entered into a one-year lease with Williamsburg of Cincinnati. The Plaintiffs signed a "Utility and Services Addendum" to the Lease. On May 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 15 of the Lease, Williamsburg gave the Plaintiffs notice that the month-to-month rent for her unit would be $898 per month. On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs provided Williamsburg the "Resident's Notice of Intent to Move Out." Their listed reasons for moving was attending Northern Kentucky University. On Aug. 24, 2017, Williamsburg sent the Plaintiffs a notice regarding a balance in the amount of $937.52 and sought payment of that balance. It attached a copy of the Plaintiffs' "Final Account Statement." According to Williamsburg, and as shown on the "Final Account Statement," titled "Move Out Statement," the Plaintiffs owed Williamsburg $1,071.81 for insufficient notice (37 days of 60 days noticed left). Charge remaining days at a month-to-month rate of $898, but Williamsburg applied the Plaintiffs' $200 security deposit towards the amount. Williamsburg subsequently retained NCS to collect the debt. David Donnett is Williamsburg's attorney. The Plaintiffs admit that they did not give 60 days' notice of intent to vacate the leased premises. Their Complaint alleges that, in seeking to recover the alleged balance, Williamsburg and NCS violated the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and Ohio Rev. Code Section 5321.16 ("Security deposits; interest; forfeiture; procedures"). The Plaintiffs also purport to bring the case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Williamsburg filed a Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs in the amount of $937.52. The Plaintiffs filed a Counterclaim against Defendant Donnett. Under the Plaintiffs' interpretation of Lease, Defendants have no legal right to recover the balance. The Defendants assert that the Lease terms expressly provide for collection of the balance. Based on a review of the Lease and Ohio law, Judge Barrett agrees with the Defendants. The Lease explicitly states how (written) and when (60 days prior to the Lease's termination date) the Plaintiffs are to provide notice to Defendant Williamsburg of their intent to terminate the lease or move out of the premises. The Plaintiffs concede that they did not give 60 days written notice of intent to vacate the leased premises. In short, the Plaintiffs broke their lease and are liable in the amount of $937.52. To be successful on their claims under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, the Federal RICO statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Plaintiffs must establish that they do not owe a debt under the Lease and they fail to do so. With respect to their claim under Ohio Rev. Code Section 5321.16, Defendant Williamsburg properly applied the Plaintiffs' security deposit to the Plaintiffs' past due rent and, before doing so, sent the Plaintiffs timely written notice regarding an itemized balance in the amount of $937.52. Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett granted Defendant Donnett's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Judge granted Defendant Williamsburg's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint and its Counterclaim. Judgment is entered in Williamsburg's favor on its Counterclaim, and Williamsburg is entitled to $937.52 plus 18% annum interest accruing from Aug. 20, 2017 from the Plaintiffs. The Judge also granted in part Defendant NCS' Motion for Summary Judgment. No fees or costs are awarded. The matter is closed and terminated from the active docket of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/FC753e from Leagle.com. Alyssa Portnoy & Darlene Portnoy, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D. Portnoy -- hawkport@aol.com. National Credit Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacie E. Barhorst -- sbarhorst@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC & Katrina Marie DeMarte, DeMarte Law, pro hac vice. Williamsburg of Cincinnati, Defendant, represented by Stacie E. Barhorst, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC, Boyd W. Gentry -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry & Katrina Marie DeMarte, DeMarte Law, pro hac vice. Alyssa Portnoy & Darlene Portnoy, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D. Portnoy. Williamsburg of Cincinnati, Counter Claimant, represented by Stacie E. Barhorst, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC. NEON THERAPEUTICS: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Franchi Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEON THERAPEUTICS, INC., ROBERT BAZEMORE, CARY PFEFFER, ROBERT KAMEN, ERIC LANDER, HUGH O'DOWD, STEPHEN SHERWIN, ROBERT TEPPER, MERYL ZAUSNER, BIONTECH SE, and ENDOR LIGHTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-UNA (D. Del., April 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Act. Plaintiff owns Neon common stock. According to the complaint, Neon's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BioNTech on January 15, 2020 in which Neon's stockholders will receive 0.063 American Depository Shares (ADS) and are entitled to vote on the Proposed Transaction on May 4, 2020. However, the proxy statement filed by Defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020 was false and misleading because there were material information omitted with respect to the Proposed Transaction. Allegedly, Defendants failed to disclose the projected financial information of the Company and BioNTech, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Duff & Phelpss LLC, and the engagements of DP and the Company's additional financial advisor Ondra Partners, which are important information for the stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Individual Defendants Robert Bazemore, Cary Pfeffer, Robert Kamen, Eric Lander, Hugh O'Dowd, Stephen Sherwin, Robert Tepper, and Meryl Zausner are the Board of Directors of the Company. Neon Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company that develops novel neoantigen-targeted T cell therapies, dedicated to transforming the treatment of cancer by directing the immune system towards neoantigens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)295-5310 Fax: (302)654-7530 Emails: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484)324-6800 Fax: (484)631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com NESTLE USA: NESQUIK Labeling "Deceptive," Santini Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SANTINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02433 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant engaged in false and deceptive packaging of its products, particularly the labeling of its NESQUIK chocolate-flavored milk product, which states that it does not contain artificial or synthetic flavors or colors. The Plaintiff claims that the product's front labeling is false and misleading because one of its ingredients, cocoa, has been processed and modified, as mentioned at the back of the packaging that the company used cocoa processed with alkali. Mr. Santini would not have bought the product at a premium price had he known the labeling was false, deceptive, and/or misleading. Nestle USA, Inc. is a food and beverage company based in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES APC 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com OAKDALE, PA: Livas Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus for Detainees ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandon Livas, Richard Joseph Buswell, Johnny Smith, Carlos Lorenzo Martin, Dewayne Corbett, Gaines Andrews, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners v. RODNEY MYERS, warden of Oakdale Federal Correctional Institutions; and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, in their official capacities, Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00422-TAD-KK (W.D. Pa., April 6, 2020), is brought on behalf of detainees filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a result of risks associated with the coronavirus. There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. The best course, according to public health experts, is to slow and prevent transmission, primarily through a practice known as "social distancing." Social distancing requires all people to stay at least six feet away from all other people to control the spread of the virus. These imperatives apply with special force to prisons, where the government controls almost entirely a person's ability to avoid others and to maintain adequate sanitation. Yet prisons are fundamentally incapable of implementing these recommendations, and incarcerated people are already dying nationwide as a result, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs assert that prisons are not sealed off from the world outside them. By their nature, people cycle in and out constantly--from correctional and medical staff, to families and attorneys, to those serving short sentences or finishing longer ones. Failing to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 endangers not only those within the institution, but the entire community. Hence, the Plaintiffs contend, immediate and categorical release of prisoners, starting with the medically vulnerable, is the primary mitigation effort that Oakdale can undertake to comport with public health guidance and to prevent a catastrophic outbreak at the facility. Accordingly, the Petitioners--a class and subclass of persons incarcerated at Oakdale now and in the future--bring this action and request immediate release of all Petitioners and Class Members, coupled with appropriate support and conditions upon release, as informed by public health expertise. If this Court does not grant immediate release on the basis of this Petition-Complaint, the Petitioners request a hearing as soon as possible. Given the exponential spread of COVID-19, there is no time to spare. The Petitioners are detained at Oakdale. Respondent Rodney Myers is the warden of Oakdale and currently has immediate custody over Petitioners.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Katie Schwartzmann, Esq. Bruce Hamilton, Esq. ACLU-F OF LOUISIANA P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 Phone: (504) 522-0628 Email: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org bhamilton@laaclu.org - and - David Luger, Esq. Hannah O. Koesterer, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W. Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60661 Email: david.luger@katten.com hannah.koesterer@katten.com - and - Ryan J. Meyer, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2121 Pearl St., Ste. 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Email: ryan.meyer@katten.com - and - Somil Trivedi, Esq. Jennifer Wedekind, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 - and - Andrea Woods, Esq. Brandon Buskey, Esq. Meredith Taylor Brown, Esq. Gabriel Arkles, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 549-2500 Email: awoods@aclu.org OXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnathan Z. ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jill N. Parrish of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in JOHNATHAN Z., and DANIEL Z., Plaintiffs, v. OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-383-JNP-PMW (D. Utah). The Plaintiffs allege healthcare insurance coverage violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, an amendment to ERISA. Plaintiff Johnathan Z. maintained a healthcare insurance policy through a self-funded employee welfare benefits plan entitled the New York City Specialized Dentistry Benefits Plan. Oxford is the insurer and claims administrator for the Plan. The Plan covered Johnathan Z. as the Plan participant and Daniel Z. as his minor son and eligible beneficiary. Daniel Z. has long struggled with mental health and substance use disorders. He began abusing illegal drugs when he was 12 years old. When he was 14 years old, he began using painkillers and dealing drugs at school, which resulted in his expulsion. Daniel Z. has also been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), Anxiety Disorder, and Depression. He has twice been admitted to the hospital to treat his substance abuse and mental health issues, including after an incident in November 2012 when he became very angry and threatened to kill himself with a kitchen knife. He also was arrested in November 2014 for possessing Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("Molly"), an illegal controlled substance. The Plaintiffs sought outpatient psychiatric care for Daniel Z.'s mental health and substance use disorders, but none proved effective at treating his condition. On the advice of Daniel Z.'s mental health care providers, the Plaintiffs have enrolled him in a variety of residential mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. First, Daniel Z. participated in a wilderness behavioral therapy program at Open Sky Wilderness Therapy from Jan. 8, 2015, to April 7, 2015. Open Sky operates in Utah and Colorado, and is a licensed and accredited outdoor behavioral health program that offers mental health services to adolescents between the ages of 13-18. The Plaintiffs allege that Open Sky met the licensing requirements for residential treatment required by the Plan." Next, the Plaintiffs admitted Daniel Z. to Crossroads Academy, which is a licensed residential treatment center in Utah that specializes in treating adolescent boys with a dual diagnosis of substance use and mental health disorders. He remained in treatment at Crossroads from April 8, 2015, to Dec. 23, 2015. Finally, the Plaintiffs sought care for Daniel Z. at Aim House from Jan. 11, 2017, through July 21, 2017. They describe Aim House as a young adult treatment facility in Colorado that provides a structured environment designed to help ease the transition from residential treatment and wilderness programs to independent living. The Plaintiffs filed insurance claims with Oxford for coverage of Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House. Oxford denied benefits for all of Daniel Z.'s residential care at Open Sky and Aim House, and covered one week of his treatment at Crossroads. The Plaintiffs exhausted internal and external appeals of Oxford's coverage denials, all of which were rejected. They allege that Oxford's denial of benefits for Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House caused them to incur over $128,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's claims adjudication processes and decision to deny benefits for Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House violated ERISA in two ways. In their First Cause of Action, they allege that the Defendant wrongfully denied benefits for all of Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open Sky and Aim House, and all but one week of his care at Crossroads. Under this claim, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant improperly applied the terms of the Plan, violated its fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1) to "act solely in Daniel Z.'s interest," did not meet its obligation under 29 U.S.C. Section 1133(2) to provide a "full and fair review" of the Plaintiffs' claims, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to provide a consistent justification for why it had denied Daniel Z.'s medically necessary treatment. Stated differently, the Plaintiffs complain that Oxford failed to meaningfully or coherently engage during the appeals process, did not act in Daniel Z.'s interest, and failed to cover medically necessary treatment based on the terms of the Plan. The Plaintiffs seek to recover benefits due under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). In their Second Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Parity Act, a component of ERISA. They allege that the Defendant violated the Parity Act by imposing more restrictive or additional treatment limitations on mental health/substance use disorder benefits than the limitations it applies to analogous medical/surgical benefits. To rectify the alleged Parity Act violations, the Plaintiffs seek equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) in the form of judicial declaration, injunction, reformation, disgorgement, accounting, surcharge, restitution, and equitable estoppel. The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in the dispute on May 11, 2018, alleging only the ERISA wrongful denial of benefits claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). Their amended their complaint on July 12, 2018, to add their Second Cause of Action concerning violations of the Parity Act as enforced through 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). The Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on Oct. 24, 2018. The first Motion to Dismiss became fully briefed on Jan. 8, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the Court issued an Order permitting the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on May 17, 2019. The Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 7, 2019, and it became fully briefed on Aug. 7, 2019. The Defendant advances three principal arguments in seeking to dismiss all or part of the Plaintiffs' SAC. First, it contends that Johnathan Z. lacks statutory and constitutional standing to bring his individual claims. Second, it urges the court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC with prejudice (or in the alternative, to enter a stay) because it asserts that Daniel Z. is a member of a pending class action that it believes is premised on the same grounds as the lawsuit. Third, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action alleging violations of the Parity Act is inadequately pled and should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Parrish rejects all of the Defendant's arguments. First, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their as-applied Parity Act challenge concerning Crossroads, their as-applied and facial Parity Act challenges concerning Open Sky, and their facial Parity Act challenge concerning Aim House. Second, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged two facial disparities to demonstrate that the Plan terms violate the Parity Act: (1) Oxford's categorical prohibition of benefits for wilderness therapy and transitional living center care may indicate that the Plan is using its "experimental" or "custodial" exclusion policies to impose separate treatment limitations only on mental health/substance abuse benefits; and (2) Oxford's categorical exclusion of wilderness therapy and care at a transitional living center may indicate that the Plan's restrictions on "geographic location, facility type, or provider specialty" for medically necessary mental health/substance abuse treatment are "more restrictive treatment limitations" than the Plan uses for medically-necessary care in the analogous medical/surgical context. Third, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged two ways in which Oxford used more restrictive "processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors" in applying its medical management standards limiting or excluding benefits based on medical necessity or medical appropriateness, or based on whether the treatment is experimental or investigative treatment limitations to mental health/substance abuse care than the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors that Oxford used in applying the limitation[s] with respect to medical/surgical benefits. First, Oxford plausibly applied acute-level criteria to deny benefits for subacute mental health/substance abuse treatment at Crossroads and Open Sky but would have applied subacute criteria to analogous subacute medical/surgical treatment. Second, Oxford plausibly applied its "experimental/investigational" exclusion policy more stringently to mental health services such as wilderness therapy than it would have applied the exclusion policy to analogous medical/surgical services. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged two as-applied Parity Act violations related to the Defendant's denial of benefits for Daniel Z.'s care at Crossroads and Open Sky. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Parrish denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/Ogg1vp from Leagle.com. Jonathan Z. & Daniel Z., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian S. King, BRIAN S KING PC & Nediha Hadzikadunic, BRIAN S KING PC. Oxford Health Plans, Defendant, represented by Clint R. Hansen -- chansen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT, Scott M. Petersen -- spetersen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT & Michael H. Bernstein -- mbernstein@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLC, pro hac vice. PATRIOT INSPECTION: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Stanley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM STANLEY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Welding Inspector, Coating Inspector, and Film Auditor in Canton, Pennsylvania from approximately May 2018 until October 2018. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week throughout his employment and was paid by Defendant a flat daily rate for each day worked regardless of the total hours worked in a work week. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated inspectors overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Patriot Inspection Services, Inc. offers a wide range of integrated pipeline and station inspection services in the oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PEP BOYS-MANNY: Pa. Eastern District Narrows Claims in Thorne Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VICKIE THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK INC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-393 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Thorne commenced the putative class action against Defendant Pep Boys pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8 for its alleged failure to provide tire registration information about tires that the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, purchased from the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that because 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8 requires the Defendant, as an independent tire distributor or dealer, to provide to tire purchasers a tire registration form or invoice showing that it gave certain information to the tire manufacturer, its failure to do either renders her unable to independently determine whether her tires have been recalled due to defects and the manufacturer unable to notify her should any defects be discovered in the tire models that she purchased. The Plaintiff claims that the regulatory violation itself; economic loss incurred from buying unregistered tires; the "imminent risk" posed by driving on tires that might be defective; having "no way of knowing if the tires were properly registered with the tire manufacturer; and being unreachable by the tiremaker" all constitute concrete harms. Notably, the Plaintiff does not contend that her tires actually suffer from a product defect. The regulation at issue, 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8, was promulgated under 49 U.S.C. Section 30117. In 49 U.S.C. Section 30117, the Congress provided that the Secretary of Transportation will require each distributor and dealer whose business is not owned or controlled by a manufacturer of tires to give a registration form (containing the tire identification number) to the first purchaser of a tire. In turn, 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8(a)(1) provides that when qualifying tire distributors or dealers sell or lease new tires to tire purchasers, these sellers must either: (1) give to the buyer a tire registration form stating the tire identification number and the seller's contact information; or (2) record electronically or on a paper tire registration form the buyer's address and name, the tire identification number, and the seller's contact information, and provide the form to the manufacturer at no cost to the buyer. If the seller chooses to electronically submit the required information to the manufacturer pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8(a)(1)(iii), then the seller must indicate so on the buyer's invoice and give that invoice to the buyer. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's initial Complaint on grounds that she lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff brings eight Counts. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds that the Plaintiff again fails to satisfy Article III's requirements and, alternatively, that the Plaintiff's Counts fail for the reasons enunciated in the Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Judge Joyner finds that the Plaintiff failed to show harm or the requisite degree of risk because she did not plead that the tires she bought from Pep Boys were in fact, if ever, recalled. Further, in the initial Complaint, the Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead that she suffered financial harm because Section 574.8 of the Safety Act specifies that independent tire distributors and dealers must comply with the regulation at no charge to the tire purchaser. The Plaintiff has not remedied these defects in the Amended Complaint at issue now, and she has not included any additional material allegations to show the requisite degree of risk or facts supporting a different concrete harm. Instead, the added and amended allegations are merely retellings of legal conclusions and immaterial facts, such as discussion of the dangers of tire defects. After evaluating the Plaintiff's allegations in numerous ways, Judge Joyner concludes that the Plaintiff's alleged harm is distinct from precedent where Courts in the jurisdiction have found concreteness. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead a concrete injury-in-fact under Article III for any of her claims for any relief. Thus, the Judge need not discuss the traceability and redressibility requirements of constitutional standing, nor need he analyze the Counts or the request for class certification. Judge Joyner granted the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to all claims and requested relief without leave to amend. The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/DpdUXo from Leagle.com. VICKIE THORNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDRA WARREN, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, BRENDAN S. THOMPSON, CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, CHRIS KESSLER, THE KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC, DINA E. MICHELETTI, FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP, J. OLIN MCDOUGALL, II, MCDOUGALL LAW FIRM LLC, ROBERT K. SHELQUIST -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P., CHRISTOPHER C. KESSLER -- ckessler@ucla.edu -- THE KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC, ERIC N. LINSK -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP & YIFEI LI -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP. PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK INC, Defendant, represented by CHARLES SCOTT TOOMEY -- scott.toomey@littletonpark.com -- LITTLETON PARK JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP & HERBERT BEIGEL, HERBERT BEIGEL & ASSOCIATES LLC. PHEAA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Silver TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NEIL SILVER, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00652-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied the Silver's motion for class certification, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to decertify the Plaintiff's proposed. Defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is an organization approved by the United States Department of Education to service federal student loans. It uses the "Avaya Proactive Contact 4.2.1" dialing system to place automated or prerecorded calls to borrowers. During the class period, the Defendant made 15,706,962 calls to 2,999,570 unique mobile phone numbers. Plaintiff Neil Silver maintains several student loans borrowed from the Education Department. In 2011, while he awaited assignment to a loan servicer, the Department informed him that such servicer would contact him by phone or mail. The Plaintiff agreed that such servicer could call him. On Oct. 13, 2012, the Department transferred the Plaintiff's loans to the Defendant for service. At oral argument, the Court confirmed, and the Plaintiff did not dispute, that the sole call made by the Defendant to his cellphone (ending in 5583) using the automated dialing system occurred on Jan. 13, 2014. The key facts to resolve the Plaintiff's motion concern the parties' communications between October 2012 and the Defendant's undisputed Jan. 13, 2014 call. The Plaintiff sent the Defendant numerous emails, requesting that the Defendant verifies both his loan information (as requested in the supplement) as well as its status as the assigned servicer. Separate from his written communications, the Plaintiff also called the Defendant several times. He used his cellphone when making each call. On Feb. 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against the Defendant in Court. On April 7, 2015, he filed his First Amended Complaint. In it, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Title 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) when it used an automatic dialing or prerecorded system to call his cellphone without his consent in January 2014. The Plaintiff alleges two claims arising out of such violation, the first sounding in negligence, and the second based upon the Defendant's knowing and intentional violation (second cause of action). The Plaintiff seeks $500 in statutory damages for each negligent violation, and "up to" $1,500 in treble statutory damages for each knowing/willful violation. In his First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff sought to certify a class comprising the following members: All persons within the United States who received any calls from Defendant, or its agent(s) and/or employee(s), to said person's cellular telephone, through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded or artificial voice, within the four years prior to the filling of the Complaint. The proposed class is the target of the Defendant's preemptive motion to decertify. On March 31, 2016, prior to any class certification motion, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on grounds of a then-recent 2015 amendment to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(a)(iii) that added an exception to Section 227(b)(1)'s general prohibition for calls made for the purpose of collecting on a debt backed by the federal government. On Dec. 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's order and remanded the action. The Ninth Circuit held that, because the Plaintiff's claims accrued prior to the 2015 amendments, that amendment's exception did not retroactively apply to the Plaintiff's claims. Following remand, the parties engaged in class discovery. On Sept. 23, 2019, the parties respectively filed a motion for class certification and motion to decertify arising out of Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff's motion seeks to certify a class that is materially identical to the putative class challenged by the Defendant and described in the First Amended Complaint, except the Plaintiff's proposed class is now limited to persons who were subject to the Defendant's challenged conduct after having requested the Ddefendant to refrain from further telephonic communications. The Plaintiff seeks to certify his proposed class under both Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2). Related to the Plaintiff's proposed class, he offers a two-step "class notice plan" to manage and identify class membership. First, he will use available contact information of potential class members that the Defendant already has in its possession and, to the extent necessary, hire a claims administrator to locate potential class members. Second, the Plaintiff will send such potential class members a form asking the following: (i) Did you inform defendant orally or in writing that you did not wish to receive telephonic communications on your cellular telephone? and (ii) Did you receive a telephonic communication from defendant on your cellular telephone after asking defendant to stop calling you? Or, in the alternative; (iii) Whether the recipient received a call from defendant after he or she asked defendant to stop calling them. Under this plan, the potential class members may verify their answers by providing additional documents or submitting their responses under penalty of perjury. Because the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class that is different than the one that is the subject of Defendant's motion, Judge Hamilton focuses his class certification analysis on the Plaintiff's proposed class only. However, because the parties mix their arguments concerning the Plaintiff's proposed class into the briefing on the Defendant's motion and also rely upon evidence submitted in support of both motions, the Judge considers arguments and evidence from the Defendant's motion that are relevant to the Plaintiff's motion. Among other things, Judge Hamilton finds that (i) to the extent the Defendant attempts to challenge the Plaintiff's proposed class on grounds of administrative infeasibility, such attempt fails; (ii) the Plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)'s commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements, but failed to proffer sufficient evidence showing that his proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement; and (iii) the proposed class is improper because individual issues of proof of consent would separately predominate their common counterpart. Given the Plaintiff's failure to show that common questions predominate, the Court denies their motion to certify the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3) without reaching whether the Plaintiff satisfied his superiority showing. Because the Defendant has set forth multiple methods for demonstrating the Plaintiff's consent that are supported by evidence, it satisfied its threshold burden of proof to put consent at issue for purpose of Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. The Court also concludes that the proposed class is improper because individual issues of proof of consent would separately predominate their common counterpart. Given that, the Court further concludes that the proposed class is improper because individual issues of proof of revocation would also predominate common questions presented by the putative class. Lastly, while the Plaintiff cites the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine, he fails to show how the Defendant's changed policy falls within that exception. Because the injunctive relief requested is itself moot with respect to the Defendant's existing use of the challenged systems, the Court concludes that the certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is separately improper on this ground. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hamilton (i) denied the Silver's motion for class certification, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to decertify the Plaintiff's proposed. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 7, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Eh3lf6 from Leagle.com. Neil Silver, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde & Swigart, Matthew Michael Loker, Kazerouri Law Group, APC, Pamela Erin Prescott -- pamela@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC & Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, doing business as FedLoan Servicing, Defendant, represented by Donald E. Bradley -- d.bradley@musickpeeler.com -- Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP. PHILIP MORRIS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in IN RE PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-CV-08049 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.). On Sept. 5, 2018, Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AG and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund commenced the class action against Defendants Philip Morris, Andre Calantzopoulos, Martin G. King, Patrick Picavet, Jacek Olczak, Manuel C. Peitsch, and Frank Ludicke, alleging that, from July 26, 2016 through April 18, 2018, they committed securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false and misleading statements to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") about clinical trials Philip Morris conducted in connection with its Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application for a smoke-free electronic device entitled iQOS, as well as about the performance of iQOS in Japan. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Court appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund as Co-Lead Plaintiffs, consolidated three related actions, and appointed the Co-Lead Counsel. On May 10, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint naming Defendants Picavet, Peitsch, and Ludicke in addition to the initial Defendants. On July 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On Sept. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Court held oral argument in November 2019. The Plaintiffs have identified roughly 70 statements by the Defendants they claim are false and misleading. According to the Amended Complaint, the Defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements can be grouped into two categories: (1) statements about the clinical studies conducted in connection with Philip Morris's MRTPA to the FDA for iQOS; and (2) statements about the performance of iQOS in Japan. The Plaintiffs bring two claims under the Exchange Act. First, they allege that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder because they made false and misleading statements about clinical trials Philip Morris conducted in connection with its Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application to the FDA, as well as false and misleading statements about the performance of its reduced risk products in Japan. Second, they allege that the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because they controlled the Section 10(b) violators. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that any of the statements in the Amended Complaint were false or misleading. Judge Abrams agrees. Some of the statements in the Amended Complaint were in fact true statements at the time they were made. Others are inactionable because they amount to puffery, subjective statements of opinion, or forward-looking statements. The Defendants also argue that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed for the independent reason that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead that any Defendant acted with the requisite scienter. The Judge again agrees. Scienter is the mental state embracing an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud by the maker of a statement. The relevant inquiry is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard. The Court finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish a strong inference of scienter based on the stock sales; (ii) the Plaintiffs fail to adequately support their claim that the Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that their statements regarding the results of their clinical studies and compliance with GCP were false or misleading; and (iii) the Plaintiffs also fail to establish strong circumstantial evidence that the Defendants knew that their statements regarding growth in Japan were false or misleading when made, or recklessly disregarded that possibility. Control person liability under Section 20(a) requires an underlying primary violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Since the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a violation of Section 10(b), their claim for Section 20(a) control person liability by the Individual Defendants also fails. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. With the exception of the Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the four undisclosed studies, the claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/6kArat from Leagle.com. City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert Daniel Gerson -- rgerson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP & Francis Paul McConville, Labaton & Sucharow LLP. Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Philip Morris International Inc, Andre Calantzopoulos, Martin G. King, Jacek Olczak, Patrick Picavet, Manuel C Peitsch & Frank Ludicke, Defendants, represented by James Ellis Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Kenneth Parsigian, Latham & Watkins LLP, Kevin Michael McDonough -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Jooyoung Yeu, Latham & Watkins LLP. Wayne Gilchrist, Interested Party, represented by Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP. Union Asset Management Holding AG, Intervenor, represented by Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP, Heather Harrison Volik, Pomerantz, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Michael Grunfeld, Pomerantz LLP & Villi A. Shteyn, Pomerantz LLP. PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING: McBrayer Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chad McBrayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Plaster & Wald Consulting Corp., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01025 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaster & Wald is an oilfield services company with operations throughout the United States. McBrayer worked for Plaster & Wald as a Rig Clerk throughout Texas and Louisiana from April 2012 to December 2017. Plaster & Wald paid McBrayer on a day-rate basis without paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours each week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PNC BANK: Bid to Certify MLO Class in Kazi Suit Partly Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TANSEER KAZI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magitsrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Kazi and Linda Scheid commenced the putative class action asserting wage and hour violations by Defendant PNC. PNC Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") received regular pay on a biweekly basis at all times relevant to this action. In addition to their regular pay, MLOs could also qualify for monthly "Plan Incentive Pay," which consisted, in part, of commissions earned on loan originations, but was also based on a number of other factors that together with the commissions resulted in "incentive credits" and thus incentive pay. The formula was generally governed by a plan document, one version of which was instituted in 2014 and another in 2017, as well as an "Addendum A" that was updated at least annually. While the factors taken into account for incentive pay changed from time to time, the consistent practice was that all incentive credits were added together each month and, if the credits exceeded the monthly threshold, an MLO received Plan Incentive Pay. One factor that was consistent over the putative class period was that regular pay was effectively deducted from the other components of an MLO's Plan Incentive Pay. Although PNC formally paid its MLOs both their regular pay and any applicable Plan Incentive Pay, the fact that the value of regular and overtime pay was effectively deducted from otherwise-applicable Plan Incentive Pay meant that the total value actually received by an MLO was equivalent to the greater of: (1) the MLO's regular and overtime pay; or (2) the MLO's Plan Incentive Pay (before the deduction of regular and overtime pay was taken into account). In some cases, when the Plan Incentive Pay formula resulted in a negative number -- including as a result of deducting the value of regular pay -- that deficit was carried over to the calculation of Plain Incentive Pay for the next month. Nevertheless, MLOs were never paid less than their regular pay for a given pay period, and failure to meet incentive goals would never result in them owing money to PNC at the end of their employment. Of the 207 MLOs at issue, PNC's senior compliance specialist Michael Smiles states that 41 never received Plan Incentive Pay. Some MLOs also received annual incentive pay bonuses; "onboarding incentive pay," which was essentially a signing bonus upon taking a job with PNC, but often paid over time and contingent on the MLO staying with the company for a certain number of months; and/or other forms of compensation not specifically at issue in Plaintiffs' theory of their claims. PNC's written policies encouraged employees to take a ten-minute on-the-clock rest break during every four-hour period of work or "major fraction thereof," such that when MLOs received their regular pay based on their hours worked, they would be paid for those rest periods. The Plaintiffs contend, however, that PNC "recaptured" any pay for rest periods -- as well as other nonproductive time like training sessions, staff meetings, and driving -- by deducting regular pay from Plan Incentive Pay, and thus effectively paying only Plan Incentive Pay in months where MLOs qualified for it. Based on the premise that Plan Incentive Pay is only attributable to the work done actually selling loans, the Plaintiffs contend that MLOs who received Plan Incentive Pay were not paid for their rest periods or other nonproductive time. The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) failure to provide paid rest periods or pay premium wages in lieu thereof as required by California Labor Code Section 226.7 and certain wage orders, including waiting time penalties for class members whose employment ended during the class period; (2) failure to pay for non-productive time as required by the California Labor Code and applicable wage orders, again including waiting time penalties for non-current employees; (3) violation of California laws requiring accurate wage statements; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law as a result of the violations addressed in the previous claims; and (5) a non-class, representative claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that they are limited to recovering damages for their first and second claims to the period beginning three years before filing the action, and that any recovery of statutory damages on the wage statement claim is limited to the period beginning one year before filing the action. The Plaintiffs' claims rely heavily, although not exclusively, on section 226.2 of the Labor Code, which provides that employees who are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period must be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time separate from any piece-rate compensation. At the time that the Plaintiffs filed their operative complaint, they sought to represent a class defined as all persons whom PNC employed in the State of California as a Mortgage Loan Officer at any time since four years before June 28, 2018, the filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit. Based on a modification to PNC's policy in July of 2019, however, the Plaintiffs might no longer seek certification beyond the final paydate of the pre-July 2019 Compensation Plan, which would include July and possibly August of 2019 due to delays in the payment of Plan Incentive Pay. Magistrate Judge Spero finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). The Judge agrees that Scheid's interest in both pre- and post-Bland claims supports, rather than detracts from, her typicality as a class representative. Also, despite the concerns raised with respect to Kazi, the counsel is adequate. The Plaintiffs' attorneys are appointed as the class counsel. The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs have shown predominance with respect to their claims based on or derivative of PNC's alleged failure to separately pay for statutory rest periods. For much the same reasons, the Judge also concludes that class treatment is superior to individual actions to resolve these claims. As far as the Magistrate Judge can discern from the record presented on the motion, pursuing claims based on nonproductive working time would require virtually a full trial for each MLO as to when and how they worked, what records they or PNC might have retained, whether the MLO remembers how long they spent in meetings and training sessions, and whether they recall working on selling loans during that time. It is conceivable that representative or statistical evidence might provide an alternative method of proof, but the Plaintiffs have not yet shown that to be true in the case. Under these circumstances, the Magistrate Judge concludes that individualized issues predominate as to claims based on nonproductive time other than rest periods, and denies certification as to those claims, without prejudice to the Plaintiffs later moving to expand the class definition if they can show some classwide method of proof. For the reasons discussed, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiff Scheid may represent a class of PNC mortgage loan officers for claims based on alleged failure to pay for rest breaks, and claims derivative of such a theory, defined as all individuals who were employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers at any time from June 28, 2014 through the resolution of the action. The Plaintiffs indicated they may wish to modify the class time period to account for a policy change that PNC instituted in July 2019, but that they do not yet have sufficient information to determine whether that change affects their claims. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for any motions or stipulations to modify the class definition, either to set an earlier end date or to seek to include claims based on nonproductive time other than rest breaks. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/1XUKF4 from Leagle.com. Tanseer Kazi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel Sitkin -- jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com -- Law Offices of James M. Sitkin, Joshua Boyette, Swartz Swidler, LLC, pro hac vice, Justin Swidler, Swartz Swidler, LLC, pro hac vice, Marc Alan Silverman -- msilverman@fwblaw.net -- Frank Weinberg Black, P.L. & Robert David Soloff -- robert@solofflaw.com -- Robert D. Soloff, P.A. Linda Scheid, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Swidler, Swartz Swidler, LLC, Marc Alan Silverman, Frank Weinberg Black, P.L., James Mitchel Sitkin, Law Offices of James M. Sitkin & Robert David Soloff, Robert D. Soloff, P.A. PNC, Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Paul W. Sweeney, Jr. -- paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Patrick Michael Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- KL Gates LLP & Saman M. Rejali -- saman.rejali@klgates.com -- K and L Gates. PSI LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Wiggins Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA WIGGINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSI, LLC, RANDY DUNLOP, and Doe Corp. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00150-JRG-HBG (E.D. Tenn., April 9, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver over the last three years. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers who were employed by Defendants are required to incur and/or pay job-related expenses including but not limited to automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and parts, insurance, cell phone costs, GPS charges, and other equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job duties. Allegedly, Defendants failed to keep track of their actual expenses and to reimburse them for their actual expenses until recently. Although Defendants employed reimbursement policy as per the Internal Revenue Service, the reimburse formula has resulted in an unreasonable underestimation of delivery drivers' automobile expenses throughout the recovery period, thereby violating the minimum wage laws. Randy Dunlop is the owner and operator of PSI, LLC. PSI, LLC operates approximately 8 to 10 pizza stores in Eastern Tennessee and sells pizza and other food items to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Burkhalter II, Esq. D. Alexander Burkhalter III, Esq. Zachary J. Burkhalter, Esq. THE BURKHALTER LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 2777 Knoxville, TN 37901 Tel: (865)524-4974 Fax: (865)524-0172 Website: www.burkhalterlaw.com - and – Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Tel: (513)715-8711 Fax: (614)340-4620 Emails: akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Church Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid Shutdown ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY CHURCH, and all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00025 (N.D. Ind., April 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for its alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff was enrolled in the University for the Spring 2020 semester and paid the cost of tuition for on-campus housing, meals and fees for the entire Spring 2020 semester. According to the complaint, Students were sent home from the University, including Plaintiff, due to the outbreak of Novel Coronavirus Disease of 2019 pandemic. However, Defendants refuse to provide restitution for tuition, housing, meals, fees, and other applicable costs. Plaintiff contends Defendants illegally and improperly retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the other Class members while prohibiting or otherwise preventing them from obtaining the benefits for which they paid. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory and equitable relief, and any other available remedies. The Board of Trustees of the Purdue University is a body corporate authorized to sue and be sued on behalf of the Purdue University with respect to its responsibilities governing the University. Purdue University is a public university located in Indiana with campuses across the state, including in West Lafayette, Indiana and Fort Wayne, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: 317-636-6481 Emails: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and – Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, Esq. Sanford Dumain, Esq. Adam H. Cohen, Esq. Blake Yagman, Esq. MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920 New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212)594-5300 Emails: jczeisler@milberg.com sdumain@milberg.com acohen@milberg.com byagman@milberg.com - and – James Evangelista, Esq. David Worley, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road Building A, Suite 245 Atlanta, GA 30350 Tel: (404)205-8400 Email: jim@ewllc.com RATNER STEEL: Harris Seeks OT Pay to Crane Line Operators ---------------------------------------------------------- NELSON HARRIS, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. RATNER STEEL SUPPLY CO., and MARK RATNER, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00112-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to pay Plaintiff and the others proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an overhead crane line operator, and his duties included loading lines and moving coils. Plaintiff was employed as a temporary hourly employee from August of 2017 to August of 2018, and as a permanent hourly employee from August of 2018 to March of 2020. Ratner Steel Supply Co. operates a steel supply business in Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: april@sandfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com RICHMOND, VA: Class in Yerbey FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYRUS YERBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-393 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Collective Notice. Plaintiffs Yerby and Adrienne Webster, and the putative class members, are employed by the City of Richmond in public facing roles within the Department of Finance that require them to respond to, communicate with and/or serve the public at call centers, "One Stop" offices, and/or cashier stations. The gravamen of the case is that the City requires the Plaintiffs, and the putative class members, to work more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation. In particular, it is alleged that Department of Finance employees were: (1) required to work before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. to complete their daily job responsibilities; and (2) were regularly required to work during their lunch breaks. The Plaintiffs allege that, in so doing, the City violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime compensation; and they seek monetary damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Collective Notice. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs brought the action to recover unpaid overtime under the FLSA. In their Motion for Conditional Certification, the Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify a collective class action and transmit notice to putative class members. In their supplemental briefing, the Plaintiffs ask for the application of equitable tolling to extend the statute of limitations. As narrowed following limited discovery, the requested conditional certification is for employees employed in seven units within the Department of Finance, more particularly: All current and former City of Richmond Department of Finance employees employed any time on or after May 24, 2016 who are/were: (i) Paid an hourly wage; and (ii) Employed in one or more of the following units: Cash Operations Unit (Cashiers); Delinquent Collections Unit; Audit Unit; Business Unit (currently called Customer Service Unit); Tax Enforcement Unit, Personal Property Unit, or Real Estate Unit; and (iii) Required to be present and working before or after the City's public office hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and/or during their daily deducted lunch breaks; and (iv) Prohibited from recording more than eight (8) hours of work per day and/or more than 40 hours of work per work week, regardless of the number of hours actually worked in that particular day or week; and (v) Denied overtime pay for time worked over 40 hours in any given work week. In other words, the Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all full time, non-exempt employees in the Delinquent Collections Unit, Cash Operations Unit, Business Unit, Tax Enforcement Unit, Personal Property Unit, Real Estate Unit, and Audit Unit. The City takes the view that conditional certification should only extend to employees in the Cash Operation Unit, Delinquent Collections Unit and the Business Unit. Judge Payne finds that there is sufficient evidence to allow the conclusion at this stage of the proceedings that the employees in those units were subject to the same policy that affected their pay without regard to the specific unit in which those employees worked. Accordingly, the employees can be considered similarly situated under the FLSA. An individual inquiry into each position within the Finance Department is unnecessary at this stage to determine whether, based on the position's classification and job duties, the employee is owed overtime pay under the FLSA. To the extent that further discovery reveals that any additional opt-in Plaintiffs are too dissimilar, or that they are otherwise not similarly situated, the City may move to decertify the class following the close of discovery. The Plaintiffs request equitable tolling of the FLSA's statute of limitations from the date of their filing of the Complaint to the end of the 60-day notice period because of the litigation posture of the case. In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to make a sufficient showing of extraordinary circumstances, misconduct by the Defendant, or defective filings, the Judge finds that equitable tolling is not warranted and, thus, the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling is denied as to all the potential Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submitted a proposed notice and consent form to be sent to the opt-in class as part of their Motion to Conditionally Certify. The City opposes a 60-day window for putative class members to return their signed consent forms to the Court, suggesting that 45 days is sufficient. The Court finds that 60 days for the putative Plaintiffs to return their signed consent forms for filing with the Court is appropriate for purposes of class certification. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Payne granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Collective Notice. In sum, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify the proposed class is granted; the motion for equitable tolling is denied; the Plaintiffs' request to provide notice to putative class members is granted, and the Notice will be sent to the potential class members, who will return their signed consent forms to the Court within 60 days of mailing (if the employee decides to opt in). A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/EBXVLt from Leagle.com. Tyrus Yerby & Adrienne Webster, Plaintiffs, represented by Nichole Buck Vanderslice -- nvanderslice@nbvlaw.com -- Law Office of Nicole Buck Vanderslice, PLLC & Craig Juraj Curwood -- ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com -- Curwood Law Firm PLC. City of Richmond, Virginia, Defendant, represented by Wirt P. Marks, IV, Office of the City Attorney & Richard Earl Hill, Jr., Office of the City Attorney. ROBINHOOD GROUP: Users Hits Trading App Downtime, Claims Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Johann and Leila Kuri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01909 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2020), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of California consumer protection laws and the California Unfair Competition Law. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm that allows users to place securities trades through its website. Robinhood's trading systems completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020 and experienced a total outage of its operating systems preventing any securities trades through its website, app or call center. Johann and Kuri are Robinhood users who subscribe to its premium service that provides research reports and market information. They subscribed to specific options that utilized exchange traded funds as part of their debit spread that had expired March 3, 2020. Both suffered losses of approximately $15,000 because of the down time. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com RT PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Delivery Drivers, Hurt Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA HURT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. RT PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO’S PIZZA and RICKY TEEL, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00057-WLS (M.D. Ga., March 30, 2020) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from October 2010 to February 2020 as a delivery driver. RT Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza, is a company that owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise stores including stores within Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com – and – Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Settlement in Kahn Suit Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HAROLD KAHN and DEBORAH KAHN, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-7540-NSR-PED (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties to the class action entered into a Settlement Agreement dated as of March 6, 2019; including the Addendum dated Sept. 3, 2019. Having considered the papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the Settlement, having considered all of the other files, records, and proceedings in the Action, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Addendum as modified in Court on Jan. 17, 2020 as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court affirmed the appointment of (i) Harold Kahn and Deborah Kahn as the Settlement Class Representatives, and (ii) Edelman, Combs, Latturner and Goodwin, LLC, & Law Office of Lawrence Katz as the Settlement Class Counsel. Judgment is entered dismissing the Action with prejudice, on the merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against any Party. The Settlement Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs in the amount of $91,324.67, such amounts to be paid from the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the Addendum. The Settlement Class Representatives are awarded service awards of $4,000 each, such amounts to be paid from the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the Addendum. The remaining $148,177.97 of the Total Settlement Amount (after deduction of the Costs of Class Notice and Administrations Costs; the Class Representatives statutory damages and Class Representative Awards, and Class Counsel's attorney's fees) will be distributed to the class members who submitted valid claims forms. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Final Order & Judgment is available at https://is.gd/D5R2Zm from Leagle.com. Harold Kahn, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated & Deborah Kahn, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Katz -- LKATZ@LAWKATZ.COM -- Law Offices of Lawrence Katz & Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alyssa Anne Sussman -- asussman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, David L. Permut -- dpermut@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Thomas M. Hefferon, Jr. -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP. SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Kupfer Alleges Violation under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequoia Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Dovid B. Kupfer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Sequoia Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01742 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sequoia Financial Services, LLC is a financial consultant in Agoura Hills, California.[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 SILVER LAKE GROUP: Hill Alleges Insider Trading in Intelsat ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SILVER LAKE GROUP, L.L.C., BC PARTNERS LLP, RAYMOND SVIDER, and JUSTIN BATEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02341 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) is an action brought on behalf of all those investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intelsat shares contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful trades from November 5, 2019 through and including November 18, 2019, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint arises from the unlawful use of material non-public information by BC Partners LLP and Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. who collectively gained over $185 million in profits and losses avoided by selling shares of Intelsat S.A., a Luxembourg-based satellite operator that provides television and radio communications, to Plaintiff and other unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders. The market's reaction to the news was quick and harsh. Intelsat's stock fell over 40% on extremely heavy trading, closing down from $13.41 per share on November 15, 2019, to $8.03 per share on November 18, the next trading day. The Defendants BC Partners and Silver Lake knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading based on the confidential market-moving information, but traded anyway, disposing to Plaintiff and other members of the Class their Intelsat stock before the news was announced and the Company's shares plummeted. Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. operates as an investment management firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds, charitable organizations, and investment companies. Silver Lake Group serves customers worldwide. BC Partners LLP is a private equity firm specialising in buyouts and acquisitions financing in Europe and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com – and – Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 Facsimile: (212) 233-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com – and – Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (877) 590-0482 Email: brian@schallfirm.com SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Sinclair's motion to dismiss the case, IN RE SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil No. CCB-18-2445 (D. Md.). The case is a class action securities case brought by Lead Plaintiffs City of Atlanta Police Pension Fund and the City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Atlanta P&F") against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Christopher S. Ripley, Lucy A. Rutishauser, Steven M. Marks, and David D. Smith. On behalf of itself and all persons or entities that acquired Sinclair common stock between Feb. 22, 2017, and July 26, 2018, Atlanta P&F alleges numerous violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from a failed merger between Sinclair and Tribune Media. Sinclair, a publicly traded company, is a telecommunications conglomerate and the largest owner of local television stations in the country. On May 8, 2017, Sinclair announced its plan to acquire Tribune, another large media company, for $3.9 billion. Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice ("DOJ") approval of the proposed merger, however, was necessary before the transaction could become final, due to FCC and DOJ limits on the amount of control one entity may have over the broadcast television market. Accordingly, in Sinclair's merger agreement with Tribune, filed publicly with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May 9, 2017, Sinclair agreed to divest its ownership in television stations as necessary to obtain regulatory approval of the Merger. Throughout the remainder of 2017 and into early 2018, Sinclair continued its attempts to convince the DOJ that divestitures in the ten specified DMAs were unnecessary. On Feb. 21, 2018, Sinclair announced a plan to divest stations in order to comply with the National Cap Rule. According to Tribune, the FCC reacted negatively to the February 2018 Divestiture Plan, taking specific issue with Sinclair's relationships with the buyers and the terms of the LMAs. The FCC decided not to put the February 2018 Divestiture Plan out for public comment, and Tribune stated the FCC emphatically rejected the plan. On April 24, 2018, Sinclair announced another plan to divest stations in order to obtain regulatory approval of the Merger. The proposed divestitures drew scrutiny from media outlets and from outside commenters who petitioned the FCC to deny approval of the Merger. On Aug. 9, 2018, Tribune withdrew from the Merger and filed a $1 billion breach of contract action against Sinclair in the Delaware Chancery Court. Several months later, on Nov. 13, 2018, the DOJ filed a complaint against Sinclair, alleging that the company engaged in illegal anticompetitive activities. Atlanta P&F initiated the lawsuit on Aug. 9, 2018, and filed the Amended Complaint on March 1, 2019. It alleges violations of the Exchange Act by corporate defendant Sinclair, as well as by senior Sinclair executives Ripley, Rutishauser, Smith, and Marks . Sinclair filed its motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019, arguing that Atlanta P&F has failed to state any claims under the Exchange Act. Judge Blake granted in part and denied in part Sinclair's motion to dismiss. All claims will be dismissed except for: (1) the Section 10(b) claim against corporate Defendant Sinclair arising from its July 2, 2018, statement that Cunningham is operated completely separately from Sinclair; (2) the Section 10(b) claim against corporate defendant Sinclair arising from its July 5, 2018, statement that it does not control or hold any attributable interest in Cunningham; and (3) the Section 20(a) claims against the Individual Defendants arising from those two statements. Among other things, the Court finds that, with respect to Sinclair's statement that "Cunningham is operated completely separately from Sinclair," Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a claim that corporate defendant Sinclair violated the securities laws. Sinclair warned investors that the Merger might not be approved. But, taking the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, Sinclair concealed the risk that its de facto control of Cunningham could result in FCC rejection of Merger. Accordingly, the Court finds that Atlanta P&F has adequately alleged that at least "one substantial cause" of Sinclair's stock price deflation was the revelation that it materially misrepresented the nature of its relationship with Cunningham. As the Court analyzed, Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a Section 10(b) claim stemming from Sinclair's materially misleading claim that Cunningham was "operated completely separately from Sinclair." The Court finds that the same conclusion is warranted. Even though the statement regarding Sinclair's control of Cunningham appeared in an FCC filing, a reasonable investor would have assumed that Sinclair's descriptions of its own business operations were statements of fact rather than opinion. The Court also finds that Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a claim as to corporate defendant Sinclair, but not as to the Individual Defendants. Accordingly, all claims against the Individual Defendants arising from statements made in the July 5, 2018, FCC filing will be dismissed. All claims against corporate defendant Sinclair will be dismissed, except for the claim arising from Sinclair's statement that "Sinclair does not control or hold any attributable interest in Cunningham." The Court agrees that, where Atlanta P&F has failed to state a claim under Section 10(b), the Section 20(a) claims against the Individual Defendants should also be dismissed. The Court, however, has determined that two of the statements identified in the Amended Complaint give rise to a claim under Section 10(b), and Sinclair offers no additional arguments that the Section 20(a) claims should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the claims against the Individual Defendants arising from Sinclair's statements that "Cunningham is operated completely separately from Sinclair," and that it "does not control or hold any attributable interest in Cunningham." A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/LxkKf4 from Leagle.com. Edward Komito, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC. City of Atlanta Police Pension Fund, (Atlanta P&F) Lead Plaintiff & City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund, (Atlanta P&F) Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon Marsh , Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Dianne M. Anderson, Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Joseph E. White, III -- jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Kyla Grant, Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Lester R. Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Maya S. Saxena -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White PA, pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Saxena White PA, pro hac vice & Thomas Joseph Minton, Goldman and Minton PC. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Christopher S. Ripley & Lucy A. Rutishauser, Defendants, represented by Scott H. Marder, Thomas & Libowitz, P.A., Henry Ader Andrews, Thomas & Libowitz, P.A., Michael P. Sternheim -- michael.sternheim@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel P. Groner -- samuel.groner@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice & Scott B. Luftglass -- scott.luftglass@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice. Steven M. Marks, Defendant, pro se. David D. Smith, Defendant, pro se. Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by Susan R. Podolsky, Law Office of Susan R Podolsky. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Williams Seeks Civil Penalties for Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY WILLIAMS, an individual on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf all others similarly situated v. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a North Carolina Corporation; FAA CONCORD INC. a California Corporation; FIRST AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-583846 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March 18, 2020), seeks recovery of civil penalties for unpaid wages resulting from the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that while paid primarily on a commission-only basis, he and other aggrieved employees were not separately compensated for time spent working on non-sales related tasks, which were and could not be compensated on a commission basis, including for example time spent waiting on customers, attending meetings, trainings, completing paperwork, calling customers, and time spent taking breaks. As a result, they who were paid primarily on a commission-basis were not paid for all hours worked, including payment of all minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt vehicle salesperson in their Concord Honda Sonic car dealership from January 2019 until his termination in August 2019. The Defendants own/operate/manage car dealerships in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (818) 456-6168 Facsimile: (888) 505-0868 E-mail: Josh@falakassalaw.com - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 675-0861 E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com STEVE & SONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aguilar Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ALBERT AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEVE & SONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-99442 (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Shipping Supervisor from July 2013 until March 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week while working for Defendant and periodically received nondiscretionary bonuses based on attendance. However, their overtime compensation was not properly paid because Defendant did not include all forms of compensation in the regular rate when calculating their overtime pay, including off-the-clock work. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including attorneys' fees. Steve & Sons, Inc. manufactures and sells doors to lumberyards, retailers and builders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501)221-0088 Fax: (888)787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TARGET CORP: Settlement Agreement in Atherton Suit Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TRAVIS ATHERTON, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-1093 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Midddle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motion to approve their settlement agreement. The parties seek to resolve Atherton's claims against Target Corp under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"). Target employed Atherton as a warehouse associate from August 2016 until approximately Nov. 5, 2019. Target considered Atherton to be "non-exempt" and subject to overtime compensation requirements under the FLSA and PMWA. According to the complaint, Target improperly calculated Atherton's regular rate -- the rate upon which his overtime pay was based -- by failing to use a "weighted average" that included shift differentials, bonuses, and other additional remuneration. Atherton also alleges that Target failed to include in his wages the time it took for him to walk from the time clocks, which are centrally located within Target's distribution centers, to security-screening locations near the distribution centers' exits. Atherton commenced the action by filing a putative class- and collective-action complaint on June 26, 2019. He asserts violations of the FLSA (Count I) and the PMWA (Count II). Following settlement negotiations, the parties filed the instant joint motion for approval of their proposed settlement agreement, along with a sealed copy of the agreement for the Court's review. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Target agrees to pay $(Redacted) to resolve Atherton's claims. Atherton will receive $(Redacted) of the total settlement amount, and his counsel will receive $(Redacted) in attorney's fees, consistent with Atherton's representation agreement. In exchange for this payment, the proposed settlement obligates Atherton to withdraw his charge of discrimination filed with state and federal agencies and to dismiss the claims asserted in his case. The proposed settlement agreement includes a specific release of any claims that Atherton could have asserted in his charge of discrimination or in the litigation. It further includes a sweeping general release of virtually any other claim Atherton may have against Target, a covenant not to sue Target for any released claim, and a provision establishing Atherton's liability for Target's attorneys' fees and costs for any lawsuit filed in breach of the covenant. The agreement includes both a confidentiality clause and a non-disparagement clause. The confidentiality clause bars Atherton from disclosing the facts underlying the lawsuit, the terms or amount of the settlement, and any information about negotiations leading to the agreement to anyone except his spouse, attorneys, tax advisor(s), or as required by law. The clause requires Atherton to respond to any inquiries about the case by simply stating that the matter has been resolved without no other comment. The non-disparagement clause prohibits Atherton from making statements or taking other actions that disparage or reflect negatively on Target. Judge Conner finds that the record provides the Court a limited basis from which to test whether the parties' proposed settlement agreement resolves a bona fide dispute. The Court's only understanding of the parties' respective positions comes from Atherton's complaint and from settlement documents indicating that Target "denies all of Atherton's allegations and claims." Nonetheless, he can glean from the record that Target disputes the factual allegations supporting Atherton's complaint and that Atherton's counsel believes that proceeding to trial in view of Target's "various defenses to its liability" would present a degree of risk. The Court finds that the proposed settlement resolves a bona fide dispute between the parties. Next, the Court concludes that the parties' proposed settlement constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of Atherton's claims. Atherton's counsel acknowledges in a declaration that Atherton faces certain risks if he proceeds with his FLSA claims. The parties ostensibly explored and gained an adequate appreciation for the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions during negotiations. And the parties agree that the proposed settlement provides Atherton with sufficiently reasonable compensation. Weighing all of the applicable factors, the Court finds that the proposed settlement presents a fair and reasonable resolution of Atherton's claims. The representation agreement contemplates (and Atherton's counsel requests) a fee of $(Redacted), or (Redacted)% of the total settlement amount. The ounsel indicates that he spent (Redacted) hours on the case, and that his usual rate is $(Redacted), resulting in a total fee lodestar of approximately $(Redacted). The requested fee -- while high when compared to the number of hours worked on the case -- is reasonable given Atherton's agreement thereto, the size of the settlement, the experience of Atherton's counsel, the risks of litigation, and awards approved in comparable single-Plaintiff FLSA settlements. Having carefully considered the terms of the proposed settlement, the Court finds that the overly broad confidentiality and release clauses are antithetical to the FLSA's objectives. By limiting public access to the settlement agreement and prohibiting Atherton from discussing its terms with his former coworkers, the confidentiality clause frustrates the FLSA's objective of widespread employer compliance and thwarts the private-public character of FLSA employee rights. The Court finds that the confidentiality clause frustrates implementation of the FLSA, and it cannot approve it in its current form. The general release is also all-encompassing. It purports to bar Atherton from raising any claim whatsoever that he may have against Target, even if that claim is presently unknown to him and wholly unrelated to the lawsuit. The parties have supplied no information from which the Court can assess the value of the released claims, and they do not otherwise justify the scope of the waiver. The Court and others routinely reject such sweeping general releases. The Court concludes that the breadth of the clause impermissibly frustrates implementation of the FLSA. As a consequence, the Court declines to approve the general release clause in its current form. Under circumstances like in the case, the Court would ordinarily grant the parties' joint motion in part and instruct them to file a revised settlement agreement removing the problematic clauses. But the parties in the case have indicated that the presently worded confidentiality provision was material to Target's willingness to settle, and the settlement itself is conditioned on Court approval of its existing terms. Judge Conner accordingly granted the parties a brief period in which to either revise their proposed settlement agreement to remedy the concerns identified or file a request for a case management conference to schedule further proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Redacted Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/UywxYn from Leagle.com. Travis Atherton, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC, Matthew D. Miller -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- & Richard S. Swartz -- eswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC. Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charlene A. Barker Gedeus -- charlene.gedeus@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Joseph J. Centeno -- joseph.centeno@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Discriminates Against Female Staff, Rocha Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CLAUDIA PLAZAS ROCHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC, Defendant, Filing No. 106039434 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 8, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes, Chapter 760. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated employees, alleges that the Defendant engaged in gender-based discrimination against her and all others female workers including lower pay rate, unequal opportunities, and harassment. She claims that the Defendant terminated her employment after she reported to Human Resources the disparate treatment and harassment she experienced from her supervisor. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a digital producer. Telemundo Network Group LLC is an operator of a Spanish-language television network based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. Daniel J. Bujan, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattomeys.com ns@rgpattomeys.com dbujan@rgpattomeys.com TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Data Breach Suit From Boykin, Robbins ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM BOYKIN AND SALLY ROBBINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC ALLIANCE, P.A. Defendant, Case No. 20C791 (Tenn. Cir., 20th Judicial, Davidson Cty.) is an action by Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and constructive fraud and seek to compel Defendant to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard patient personally identifiable information ("PII") that remains in its custody in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring. On February 14, 2020, Tennessee Orthopaedic announced that two of its employees had been subjected to phishing attacks resulting in the compromise of their emails and the subsequent exfiltration of the personally identifiable information PII and protected health information ("PHI") of 81,146 patients. The exposed PII included: patient names, dates of birth, contact information (addresses, phone numbers and email addresses), Social Security numbers, health insurance information, treatment or diagnostic information (including codes), and/or treatment cost information. This Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patient PII. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, patient PII is now in the hands of thieves. Plaintiffs and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud. Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, P.A. is an orthopaedic surgery group serving Middle Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Micah S. Adkins, Esq. The Adkins Firm, P.C. 1025 Westhaven Blvd, Suite 220 Franklin, TN 37064 Telephone: (615) 370-9659 Facsimile: (205) 208-9632 Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com – and – Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Christopher B. Barbour, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, PC 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com cbb@rhinelawfirm.com THEMAVEN INC: Jones Claims Website not Deaf-accessible ------------------------------------------------------ Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Themaven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01440 (E.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. TheMaven, Inc. operates TheStreet.com, an online media and sales website covering financial news and financial literacy. Jones is legally deaf and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the hearing-impaired. Jones attempted to watch current events videos but it did not contain closed captioning. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel. (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com TOWN SPORTS: Members Still Charged Despite Closure, Radford Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, NANCY RADFORD AND KAYCEE FARLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. and TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a NEW YORK SPORTS CLUBS, BOSTON SPORTS CLUBS, WASHINGTON SPORTS CLUBS, PHILADELPHIA SPORTS CLUBS, LUCILLE ROBERTS, PALM BEACH SPORTS CLUBS, AROUND THE CLOCK FITNESS, AND TOTAL WOMAN GYM AND SPA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02938 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of fitness club membership contract, common law, and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated members of TSI fitness clubs, allege that the Defendants continued to charge them for their monthly fitness club fees despite the fact that they cannot use the services due to the clubs' closure following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs and Class members' inquiries and questions about their monthly fees were left unanswered and they were still charged despite efforts to cancel their membership. Moreover, the members who opted for freeze membership were charged with freeze fees without prior notification. The Plaintiffs seek the maximum amount of damages available by law for the Defendants' unfair business practices. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company that operates and owns fitness clubs, with its principal place of business in New York. Town Sports International, LLC is a health and fitness clubs operator, with its principal place of business in Elmsford, New York. It is operating under a variety of brand names, including New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington Sports Clubs, Philadelphia Sports Clubs, Lucille Roberts, Total Woman Gym and Spa, Palm Beach Sports Clubs, and Around the Clock Fitness. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Nicholas A Coulson, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com mrobb@ldclassaction.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Ferraguto Suit Over False Marketing ------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP FERRAGUTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., Inc. Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02363-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of purchasers and lessees of the Toyota Rav4 Hybrid, model years 2019-2020, class vehicles that were falsely and misleadingly advertised on Defendant's website and its brochures as having a combined MPG of 40 and a 14.5-gallon fuel tank, translating into approximately 580 miles of travel on a tank of gas. The Defendant has been aware of the defect for a long time. Despite the fact of Defendant's awareness of the defect, Toyota Motor Sales has failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff seeks redress from Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and alleges causes of action for fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and for unjust enrichment. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retails and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. Toyota Motor operates worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 Email: rrivas@zlk.com rmah@zlk.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Burch Files FDCPA Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The case is styled as Sabrina Burch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp. and LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00356 (M.D. Fla., April 8, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency.[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 ULTIMATE CARWASH: Underpays Car Washers & Detailers, Mitchell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANY Y. MITCHELL, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE CARWASH, INC., RICHARD E. PALACIOS, and CHRISTINE A. PALACIOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-60728-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempted, full-time and hourly-paid car washer and car detailer attendant from approximately December 13, 2018 through October 18, 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked between 56-60 hours weekly and did not take bonafide lunch periods while employed by Defendants. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated car washer and car detailer at least minimum wages for every hour worked and overtime compensation at the rate of one-half of their regular rate of pay for all of the overtime hours they worked. Richard E. Palacios and Christine A. Palacios are owners/officers and managers of Ultimate Carwash. Ultimate Carwash, Inc. provides car wash and car detailing services in Broward County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305)446-1500 Fax: (305)446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in David P. ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID P., and L.P., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER, and the MORGAN STANLEY MEDICAL PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00225-JNP-PMW (D. Utah), Judge Jill N. Parrish of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff David P., an employee of Morgan Stanley, maintained a healthcare insurance policy through a self-funded employee welfare benefits plan entitled the Morgan Stanley Medical Plan. United operated as the third-party claims administrator for the Plan. MSCHRO was the designated plan administrator for the Plan. The Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, United acted as an agent for the Plan and MSCHRO. The Plan covered David P. as the Plan participant and L.P. as his minor daughter and eligible beneficiary. From an early age, L.P. has been treated for a range of mental health and substance abuse conditions. In the fourth grade, L.P. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder ("ADD"). L.P.'s symptoms worsened in high school when her drug use intensified and she began experiencing severe anxiety. L.P.'s school nurse recommended that she undergo psychological care and potential hospitalization if her symptoms did not improve. L.P. began seeing Dr. Robert Weaver, a clinical neuropsychologist, who recommended that L.P. receive hospitalization because her "drug use and self-harming behaviors posed a threat to her safety and the safety of others. After a particularly severe instance of self-harming by cutting, Dr. Weaver warned that L.P. was at risk of suicide if she did not receive immediate treatment. The Plaintiffs admitted L.P. to a mental health/substance abuse residential treatment program at Summit Achievement in Maine on Nov. 28, 2016. Before completing the program at Summit, the Plaintiffs transferred L.P. to a different mental health/substance abuse residential treatment program at Uinta Academy in Utah starting Feb. 14, 2017. L.P. received care at Uinta until Nov. 30, 2017. Both Summit and Uinta are treatment facilities which provide sub-acute inpatient treatment to adolescents with mental health, behavioral, and/or substance abuse problems. The Plaintiffs filed insurance claims with United for coverage of L.P.'s treatment at Summit and Uinta. United denied paying benefits for all of L.P.'s residential care at Summit and covered one week of her treatment at Uinta. The Plaintiffs exhausted internal and external appeals of United's benefits denials, all of which were rejected. The Plaintiffs allege that United's denial of benefits for L.P.'s treatment at Summit and Uinta caused the Plaintiffs to incur over $177,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' claims adjudication processes and decision to deny benefits for L.P.'s treatment at Summit and Uinta violated ERISA in three ways. In their First Cause of Action, they allege that the Defendants wrongfully denied benefits for all of L.P.'s treatment at Summit and all but one week of her care at Uinta, and seek damages under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). Under this claim, the Plaintiffs complain that United failed to engage in meaningful dialogue during the appeals process, did not act in L.P.'s interest, and failed to cover medically necessary treatment based on the terms of the Plan. In their Second Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Parity Act, a component of ERISA. They allege that the Defendants violated the Parity Act by imposing more restrictive or additional treatment limitations on mental health/substance use disorder benefits than the limitations applied to analogous medical/surgical benefits. To rectify the alleged Parity Act violations, the Plaintiffs seek equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) in the form of judicial declaration, injunction, reformation, disgorgement, accounting, surcharge, restitution, and equitable estoppel. In their Third Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs request statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1)(A) and 1132(c). They argue that ERISA requires plan administrators or their agents to produce certain plan documents and benefits criteria within thirty days of request, and that United failed to provide such documents on six occasions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory penalties against the Defendants of up to $110 per day after the first 30 days for each instance in which United failed to provide the Plaintiffs with requested documents. In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants advance four principal arguments in seeking to dismiss all or part of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. First, they contend that David P. lacks statutory and constitutional standing to bring his individual claims. Second, Defendants urge the court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice (or in the alternative, to enter a stay) because Defendants assert that L.P. is a member of a pending class action that the Defendants believe is premised on the same grounds as this lawsuit. Third, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action alleging violations of the Parity Act is inadequately pled and should be dismissed with prejudice. Fourth, theys contend that the Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for statutory penalties should be dismissed with prejudice because their requests for documents were directed to the wrong entity or are time-barred. Judge Parrish rejects the Defendants' first, second, and third arguments, but accepts its fourth argument concerning statutory penalties. Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their Parity Act claims because (1) the Plaintiffs identified a specific non-quantitative treatment limitation in United's application of acute-level criteria to a benefits claim for subacute mental health/substance abuse care at residential treatment centers; (2) the Plaintiffs appropriately (based on Parity Act regulations) analogize to medical/surgical care at skilled nursing, inpatient hospice, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities that are covered by the Plan; and (3) the Plaintiffs plausibly allege a treatment limitation disparity that Defendants applied acute-level criteria to subacute mental health/substance abuse services, but would have applied subacute level criteria to the analogous subacute medical/surgical services. The Court will dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' statutory penalties argument under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c). The Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action alleges that they are entitled to an award of statutory penalties under ERISA because United failed to provide Plan documents, policies, and criteria upon repeated request. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs point to no binding or persuasive authority to support their argument, and she has found no such authority in the Tenth Circuit. Because the Plaintiffs directed their documents requests to United, the claims administrator, and not to MSCHRO, the plan administrator, their requests did not trigger the ERISA disclosure requirements and therefore do not warrant imposing statutory penalties. For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c) is dismissed with prejudice. In all other respects, the Court denied the Defendants' motion . A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/ZLMNcp from Leagle.com. David P. & L. P., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian S. King, BRIAN S KING PC, Brent J. Newton, BRIAN S KING PC & Nediha Hadzikadunic, BRIAN S KING PC. United Healthcare Insurance, Morgan Stanley Chief Human Resources Officer & Morgan Stanley Medical Plan, Defendants, represented by Clint R. Hansen -- chansen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT, Scott M. Petersen -- spetersen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT & Michael H. Bernstein -- mbernstein@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLC, pro hac vice. UNITED STATES: DeSuze Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mary DeSuze, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum & Order dated March 5, 2020, and Judgment dated March 6, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled DeSuze, et al. v. Carson, et al., Case No. 18-cv-180, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, according to the complaint, through the action under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Enforcement Act of 1871, and New York state common law, longstanding and former tenants of Linden Plaza seek to demonstrate that their interest in affordable housing converges with the public interest in avoiding waste. Over the past decade, hundreds of households who have called Linden Plaza, a 1,527-unit state and federally subsidized rental project, home for decades have perversely and ironically struggled after their rents doubled or tripled because of a "preservation transaction" approved by HUD. Simply to pay the inflated rents, low-and-moderate income families have gone hungry, dispensed with childcare, taken out high interest loans, put off live-saving medical treatment, or prematurely invaded retirement plans lest they end up homeless. Some, like Petra Montgomery, became permanently homeless where, after having exhausted all desperate alternatives, they were inevitably evicted. Others have succumbed to illnesses or even taken their lives due to the stress of the omnipresent specter of eviction. The appellate case is captioned as DeSuze, et al. v. Carson, et al., Case No. 20-1141, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary DeSuze, and other similarly situated current or former tenants of Linden Plaza, et al., are represented by: Gregory Emmanuel Louis, Esq. COMMUNITIES RESIST, INC. 109 South 5th Street Brooklyn, NY 11249 Telephone: 718-288-4458 Email: glouis@communitiesresist.org Defendants-Appellees Ben Carson, et al., are represented by: Varuni Nelson, Esq. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 – and – Peter C. Neger, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: 212-309-6935 – and – James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2500 UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Miami. The case is styled as Adelaide Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University of Miami, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01348-BHH (D.S.C., April 8, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to a Diversity-Contract Dispute. The University of Miami (informally referred to as UM, UMiami, U of M or The U) is a private research university in Coral Gables, Florida. As of 2019, the university enrolls 17,811 students in 12 separate colleges/schools, including the Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine in Miami's Health District, a law school on the main campus, and the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science focused on the study of oceanography and atmospheric sciences on Virginia Key, with research facilities at the Richmond Facility in southern Miami-Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Poulin, Esq. Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com - and - Roy T Willey , IV, Esq. Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC 32 Ann Street Unit B Charleston, SC 29403 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ziarno Sues Over Automobile Sunroof Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ KRZYSZTOF ZIARNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03833 (D.N.J., April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and marketed Volkswagen vehicles, including 2016-present Audi A1 Mk2, Audi A3 Mk3, Audi TT Mk3, Audi Q2, Audi Q3, Volkswagen Arteon, Volkswagen Atlas/Teramont, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Polo, Volkswagen Tiguan, and Volkswagen Touranhas, with sunroof defect. The Defendants refused to disclose and failed to warn consumers of the defect and the propensity for the vehicles' sunroofs to leak despite the company's knowledge of the Defect and the problems associated with it. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of automobile manufacturer Volkswagen AG, with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia. Volkswagen AG is a multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net josterwise@bm.net apark@bm.net agertner@bm.net - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. Jason Barnes, Esq. Brittany A. Boswell, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 12 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com bboswell@simmonsfirm.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Arthur Stock, 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 mark@gregcolemanlaw.com arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Mark P. Bryant, Esq. Emily Ward Roark, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER PSC 601 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42002-1876 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 Facsimile: (270) 443-8788 E-mail: mark@bryant.law emily@bryant.law WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. The case is styled as Glennette Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01703-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., owns and operates a chain of grocery stores. The Company offers products such as meat, seafood, deli, baked goods, health supplements, herbal remedies, pharmacy products, and wines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com WESTON MEMORY: Underpays Caregivers, Troutman Claims ---------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE TROUTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTON MEMORY CARE, LLC and SANCTUARY CARE GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00332 (W.D. Wis., April 7, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid and non-exempt Caregiver working primarily at Defendants' DeForest, Wisconsin location in the State of Wisconsin in approximately December 2019 and still currently employed with Defendants. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees frequently worked in excess of forty hours per workweek during the three years. However, Defendants deliberately deprived them of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. Allegedly, Defendants employed an unlawful compensation policies, practices, customs, and/or schemes of failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief. Weston Memory Care, LLC owns and operates multiple physical locations, often referred to as "communities," such as rehabilitation, memory care, and assisted living facilities, in the State of Wisconsin. Sanctuary Care Group, LLC manages Western Memory Care's physical locations or communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemond Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WS 53005 Tel: (262)780-1953 Fax: (262)565-6469 Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com YONKERS, NY: Malkawi Files Civil Rights Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Yonkers. The case is styled as Ihsan Malkawi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Yonkers, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02893 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other filed pursuant to the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Yonkers is a city on the Hudson River, in Westchester County, New York. Green spaces include Untermyer Park and Gardens, with its formal Walled Garden, water features and river views. The Hudson River Museum has American art, an 1876 mansion and a planetarium. Presidential portraits are displayed at Philipse Manor Hall State Historic Site, a Georgian house. Empire City Casino and Raceway hosts horse races.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Lerner Freeman, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 600 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 763-5000 Fax: (212) 763-5001 Email: efreeman@ecbalaw.com - and - Ogilvie Andrew Fraser Wilson, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 763-5000 Fax: (212) 763-5001 Email: awilson@ecbalaw.com ZOOM VIDEO: Brams Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents ---------------------------------------------------- KIM BRAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ERIC S. YUAN, and KELLY STECKELBERG, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02396 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Zoom securities from April 18, 2019 through April 6, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about Zoom's business, operational and compliance policies, particularly the degree to which its video communication software was encrypted, in connection with its initial public offering. The truth on the deficiencies of the company's video communication software emerged due to the increased utilization of the software as an impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following a series of news reports and admission of the company that it had significantly overstated the encryption level of the software, the market value of its securities precipitous decline, which caused losses and damages to the Plaintiff and Class members. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a San Jose, California-based company that designs, develops, and sells a popular cloud-based communications platform that concentrates on video conferencing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Frank Busch, Esq. WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 357-8900 Facsimile: (415) 357-8910 E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com busch@wvbrlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***