/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 95 Headlines ADS ALLIANCE: Stephens Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class AFSCME: Masuo Appeals D. Oregon Ruling in Civil Rights Suit ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Roseville Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Clerical Staff Class ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Cleaver Suit Over Unused Ikon Passes AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tice Class Suit AO SMITH: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Retirement Plan's Suit Pending ARIZONA: Raftopoulous-Johnson Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Berkseth-Rojas Suit Over Coverage Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Gilder Alleges Discriminatory Background Check BAYPORT CREDIT UNION: Barker Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Certify Class BP WEST COAST: J. Court Seeks Protective Order to Stop Deposition BROWN UNIVERSITY: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought CALIFORNIA: Jones Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit COLUMBIA MIYABI: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rich FLSA Suit COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Coyle Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts COUNTRY THUNDER: Faces Fitzpatrick Suit Over Breach of Contract CRANDALL DRILLING: Faces Sposato Suit Over Upaid Overtime Wages CRESCENT DRILLING: Court Cond. Certified Oilfield Workers Class CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Mendes Claims DARKTRACE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval DEFENSE TAX: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class DELTA AIRLINES: Rojas Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit DIN TAI: Garcia Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA & Labor Code FIFTH THIRD: Cert. of Breach of Contract & TILA Classes Sought FM JANITORIAL: Underpays Dishwashers, Vondergathen et al Claim FORT DEARBORN: Fails to Pay Overtime for Operators, Harrison Says GAIN CAPITAL: Franchi Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Still Pending GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Drop Varga Class Suit Remains Pending GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Tri-State Class Suit in Delaware GNC HOLDINGS: Amavizca Sues over Fake Glucosamine Sulfate Product GREWAL LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices HARRY'S NURSES: Files Cert. Petition in Gayle FLSA Class Suit HERTZ CORP: Fails to Give Meal & Rest Periods, McChristion Claims HOST INT'L: Improperly Defers Retirement Pay, Frankenstein Claims IANTHUS CAPITAL: Finch Sues Over 62% Decline in Share Price IANTHUS CAPITAL: Riback Sues over Stock Losses, False Statements IAS LOGISTICS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Jones Employment Suit JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Drive Thrus JOAMAR INC: Russo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages JOHN STEWART COMPANY: Faces Bryant Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Noohi Fraud Suit in C.D. California KELLOGG CO: Calif. Class Suit over Product Statements Continues LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS: Sypherd Sues Alleging Age Discrimination LEE ESTOCK: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot LEGACY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Phillips Claims LIFE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Walker Case LUCKIN INVESTOR: Sterckx Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y. MANKIN LAW GROUP: Brockman Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Acts MARATHON PETROLEUM: Morrison et al Seek Non-Prorated Bonuses MDL 2244: Vroman v. DJD Medical Case Moved to N.D. Texas MDL 2591: Heartland Corn v. Syngenta Seeds Moved to Kansas MDL 2606: Handley v. Daiichi Sankyo Moved to District of New Jersey MDL 2627: Chaudhary v. Lumber Liquidator Moved to E.D. Virginia MDL 2734: Estelle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Moved to N.D. Florida MDL 2738: Weaver, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey MDL 2804: 20 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio MDL 2833: Court Denies Motion to Transfer 2 Suits vs. Devos, et al. MDL 2873: Court Denies DuPont's Bid to Transfer 8 Suits vs. 3M Co. MDL 2873: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order on Kovach v USA MDL 2875: Bokhari v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Moved to New Jersey MDL 2875: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for "Garrison" MDL 2885: Conditional Transfer Order for Graves v. 3M Vacated MDL 2913: Eisenhauer, Lewis Actions Moved to N.D. California MDL 2913: Lindstrom Suit Moved to Northern District of California MDL 2929: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 5 Suits vs Quincy Bioscience MDL 2930: Novartis Pharmaceuticals' Patent Suits Moved to Delaware MDL 2931: 14 Delta Dental Antitrust Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois MDL 2932: Court Denies Bid to Move 8 Wells Fargo Mortgage Lawsuit MDL 2933: 6 FCRA Suits Transferred to Northern District of Georgia MDL 2933: Lewis v. Transunion Over Credit Reports Consolidated MDL 2934: Court Denies Joel Snider's Bid to Centralize 4 Actions MDL 2935: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Patent & Contract Suits METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action METLIFE INC: Still Defends Atkins Suit over Group Annuity Contracts MIKE SLAGLE: Amended Bid for Class Classification Denied MISSION ROAD: Bid to Certify Collins Collective Action Denied NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Reyes et al Sue Over Steep Inspection Fees NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Civil Rights Suit NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Deg Suit Over Unlawful Solicitation Calls NORTHLAND GROUP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Maher FDCPA Suit NTI SERVICES: Morse Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OAKLAND, MI: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses OHIO ASSOCIATION: Court Denied Bid for Class Cert. in "Littler" OPTIMA HEALTH: Misclassifies Utilization Reviewers, Edwards Claims OWNERS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Claim, Bridal Expressions Says PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Seeks Certification of Collective Action PENN NATIONAL: Cruz-Perez Sues Over Breach of FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA PER SE GROUP: Fowler Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Staff PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses RBC CAPITAL: Still Defends Forex Trading Suits in Canada and US RCI HOSPITALITY: Misclassifies Dancers, Bazaldua and Phillips Say RMLS SHOP: Court Cond. Certified Class of Server Employees SARASOTA, FL: Abelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action SBM SITE: Faces Parhman Class Suit in California Superior Court SENTINEL INSURANCE: Prato Seeks Proper Benefits for Policyholders SHIPT INC: Sued by Hearl for Misclassifying Personal Shoppers SIGNAL HILL: Underpays Auditors, Butler Claims SOUTHERN COMPANY: Faces Shiflett FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Gorss TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification STONEMOR GP: Lehman-Clements Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stiching Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Suit Nixed by Court-Approved Settlement TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending TEVA PHARMA: Direct Buyers' Claims Pending in AndroGel Litigation TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Namenda IR TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts THERAPEUTIC HEMP: Berger Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages TO-RISE LLC: Final Certification of Class Sought in Lora Action TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bids to Nix Treasuries Antitrust Lawsuit Pending TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices U.S. IMMIGRATION: Class Cert. of Immigration Detainees Sought UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Pricing Cases Dismissal UNITED OF OMAHA: Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES: Faces Infinity Civil Rights Suit in Maryland VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Doe Says VOLUME SERVICES: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation WELLS FARGO: PTS Sues Over Priority of Small Businesses' PPP Loan WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Reaches MOU to Settle MDL in W.D. Pennsylvania WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Natural Gas Price Index Class Suits Pending WRIGHT MEDICAL: 72 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at Dec. 29 WRIGHT MEDICAL: SEC Solicitation Statement Lacks Info, Curtis Says WRIGHT MEDICAL: William Grubb Sues Over Stryker Acquisition ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Take Data Security Precautions, Jimenez Says [^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class ********* ADS ALLIANCE: Stephens Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02152-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Although the Plaintiff has routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff has not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time periods. The Plaintiff was employed by ADS in Akron, Ohio, from October 2017 until April 2019. ADS provides customer relations services as well as debt collection services for its business clients, such as J. Crew, Ulta Beauty and Pottery Barn throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JED B. IVERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., and ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE MIDWEST, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00867-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. Filed ), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons: (1) whose cell phone numbers, (2) ADS obtained from a third party, according to its TRUX records, (3) with whom there is no contract listed in its TRUX records, and (4) who were called via ADS's Five system between July 11, 2014 and the present using a pre- recorded voice message, according to ADS's Five9 records"; and 2. appointing himself as class representative and his attorneys as class counsel, and grant such other relief deemed just. The Plaintiff contends that ADS knows it calls persons without first getting their prior express consent because it acquires their telephone numbers from other trash-removal companies as part of its business expansion program. He adds that his expert confirmed more than 35,000 of these numbers are cell phone numbers. Further, the call records show ADS made approximately 140,000 pre-recorded voice calls to more than 21,000 of these cellular numbers where ADS's "customer" records show it acquired the number from a third party, and had no signed contract with the called party. Advanced Disposal offers waste disposal, collection and recycling services for residential, commercial, industrial and construction customers.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael S. Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-726-1092 Facsimile: 312-726-1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com mhilicki@keoghlaw.com - and - Christopher P. Martineau, Esq. Christopher A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON | MARTINEAU, P.L.L.P. 2233 Hamline Avenue North, Suite 102 Roseville, MN 55113 Telephone: (612) 767-7790 Facsimile: (612) 379-0480 E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com cjohnston@jmlegal.com - and - Max Story, Esq. MAX STORY LAW 328 2nd Avenue N., Suite 100 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com AFSCME: Masuo Appeals D. Oregon Ruling in Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Steven Masuo, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Steven Masuo, et al. v. AFSCME, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01685-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to end union officials' "window period" policies that block thousands of workers from exercising their constitutional right under the U.S. Supreme Court Janus decision to refrain from financially supporting a union. The case was filed at the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by ten public employees with free legal representation from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation. The lawsuit names as defendants Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union; American Federation of State, Local, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 75; and the employers who continue to extract money from the workers' wages under the "window period" policies without the workers' consent. The appellate case is captioned as Steven Masuo, et al. v. AFSCME, et al., Case No. 20-35355, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 26, 2020; -- Transcript is due on June 23, 2020; -- Appellants Gloria Carlson, Jacyn Gallagher, Lindsey Hart, Craig Leech, Steven Masuo, Matthew Puntney, Bryan Quinlan, Marina Shadrin, Misty Staebler and Betty Sumega's opening brief is due on August 3, 2020; -- Appellees AFSCME, Local 3336, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Association of Engineering Employees of Oregon, City of Cornelius Employees Union, AFSCME Local 189, Marion Employees Association, Local 294 of Oregon Public Employees Union, Multnomah County Employees Union, Local 88, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, National Education Association of the United States, Oregon AFSCME Council 75, Oregon Education Association, Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU), Linn County Local 390, Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union, Service Employees International Union, CTW, CLC, Southern Oregon Bargaining Council and Three Rivers Education Association's answering brief is due on September 2, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN MASUO, et al., on behalf of themselves and prospective classes of similarly situated individuals, are represented by: James G. Abernathy, Esq. Rebekah Millard, Esq. FREEDOM FOUNDATION P.O. Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 Telephone: (360) 956-3482 - and - Milton L. Chappell, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 770-3329 Defendants-Appellees AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, et al., are represented by: James S. Coon, Esq. SWANSON, THOMAS, COON & NEWTON 820 Southwest Second Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 228-522 - and - Scott A. Kronland, Esq. Amanda Christine Lynch, Esq. Matthew John Murray, Esq. P. Casey Pitts, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 - and - Margaret S. Olney, Esq. BENNETT HARTMAN MORRIS & KAPLAN, LLP 210 SW Morrison Street Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 546-9634 - and - Jason M. Weyand, Esq. TEDESCO LAW GROUP, LLC 12780 SE Stark Street Portland, OR 97233 Telephone: (541) 377-1708 - and - Jeffrey William Burritt, Esq. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-3290 Telephone: (202) 822-7231 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Roseville Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH M. HOGAN and JOHN F. MORICI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01822 (Filed March 2, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on April 28, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02897-MMC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Align common stock between April 24, 2019, and July 24, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made numerous materially misleading statements emphasizing the growth and performance of the Company's operations in China. The Plaintiff purchased Align common stock during the class period. Align is a medical device company that designs, manufactures, and markets devices to treat misaligned teeth. The Company's principal products are its line of Invisalign (TM) clear dental aligners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631 367-7100 Facsimile: 631 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com noam@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313 578-1200 Facsimile: 313 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Caz Hashemi, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: CHASHEMI@WSGR.COM dgavril@wsgr.com isalceda@wsgr.com sbassin@wsgr.com ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Clerical Staff Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY MAINTENANCE INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER BREWER, individually, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members on behalf of: "any and all non-exempt customer service/clerical employees of Defendant who were not paid full and proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as a result of Defendants' illegal "Fluctuating Workweek" as well as common policies and practices of: (a) manipulating employee pay from salary to hourly in varying weeks when it suited Defendants to avoid the payment of overtime wages; (b) requiring employees to work "off the clock" for "on call time," and during what was supposed to be "meal breaks" without properly accounting or compensating employees for same as overtime hours worked"; 2. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff a list of all similarly situated "non-exempt customer service/clerical employees” within the last three years; 3. approving the proposed "Notification" letter to be sent to all similarly situated employees company wide; and 4. approving the proposed "Notice of Consent to Join” form, which similarly situated employees can complete, sign, and file with the Court. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs who have come forward to participate in this case, prior to any notice being issued, are former non-exempt customer service/clerical employees of Defendants who were not paid time and one-half overtime wages for each hour they worked over 40 during a workweek while employed with the Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class, to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, however, the Defendants failed to pay full and proper overtime at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for such hours. Instead, Defendants utilized an illegal "Fluctuating Workweek” methodology, whereby they paid the Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class "half-time" for all overtime hours. This practice violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, because the Plaintiff's, Opt-In Plaintiff's, and the putative class were paid regular (straight-time) compensation which varied from week-to-week.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Cleaver Suit Over Unused Ikon Passes ------------------------------------------------------------ VANESSA CLEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY and IKON PASS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01186-RBJ (D. Colo., April 28, 2020), seeks relief for the Defendants' customers nationwide that purchased Ikon Passes for the 2019-2020 season who, as of March 15, 2020, had not used up the days remaining on their Ikon Passes. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have breached their contracts with Class members, as well as unjustly enriched itself by retaining passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of consumers--while denying passholders all access to all of Defendants' mountain resorts. On March 14, 2020, Alterra announced the closure of all of its North American resorts. Around the same time, other Ikon resorts announced their closure. This closure happened well before the end of the ski season, the complaint says. The Plaintiff is a resident of Colorado, who purchased an Ikon Pass for the 2019-2020 season. She could not use her Ikon Pass, including on several planned spring ski trips at Alterra ski resorts. Alterra owns ski resorts in Colorado and around North America. Ikon Pass, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 3501 Wazee St., in Denver, Colorado, and is a fully-owned subsidiary of Alterra. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig R. Valentine, Esq. NORTON FRICKEY, P.C. 2301 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Suite 205 Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Telephone: (719) 634-6450 Facsimile: (719) 634-6807 E-mail: craig@coloradolaw.com - and - Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC 1200 G Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (844) 204-9965 Facsimile: (866) 734-0622 E-mail: stuart@paynterlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tice Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Hayley Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01311-SVW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit targets Amazon's unlawful recording, permanent storage, analysis, and use of the voices and conversations of adult Californians communicating with or otherwise heard by Amazon's Alexa recording devices. According to the complaint, every time Plaintiff used the Echo Dot Device to communicate with Alexa, Amazon recorded her voice and communications and permanently stored those recordings on its servers. It may also have analyzed some or all of these. The appellate case is captioned as Hayley Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55432, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Amazon.com, Inc. and a2z Development Center, Inc.'s opening brief is due on June 16, 2020; -- Appellee Hayley Charmaine Tice's answering brief is due on July 16, 2020 -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee HAYLEY CHARMAINE TICE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquistm, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Defendants-Appellants AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., are represented by: Molly Melcher, Esq. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 842-3500 - and - Armen Nercess Nercessian, Esq. Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq. Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 AO SMITH: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Retirement Plan's Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the case styled, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., remains pending, according to A. O. Smith Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On May 28, 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. Subsequently, on November 22, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. This action, now captioned as City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and seeks damages and other relief based upon the allegations in the complaint. On January 24, 2020, A. O. Smith and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Their motion is currently pending. A. O. Smith Corporation, incorporated on July 9, 1986, operates through two segments: North America and Rest of World. The Company's Rest of World segment primarily consists of China, Europe and India. Both segments manufacture and market comprehensive lines of residential and commercial gas, gas tankless and electric water heaters, as well as water treatment products. Both segments primarily manufacture and market in their respective regions of the world. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ARIZONA: Raftopoulous-Johnson Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- TACIA RAFTOPOULOUS-JOHNSON and STEVEN A. JOHNSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 2:20-cv-04399-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., April 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Arizona State University, and who, because of ABOR's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. On March 11, 2020, ABOR, through ASU's President Michael Crow announced via email that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes would be suspended effective March 16, 2020. The announcement informed students that all classes would instead be held remotely through online formats. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Ms. Raftopoulous-Johnson, Mr. Johnson, and the putative class contracted and paid for. The Plaintiffs assert that the online learning options being offered to ASU students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities. ASU is one of the country's largest public universities, with an enrollment of approximately 90,000 students. The University is organized into 17 colleges and offers 35 degree options for undergraduate students as well as more than 400 graduate and certificate programs. ASU also operates an online program with an enrollment of more than 38,000.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Berkseth-Rojas Suit Over Coverage Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIE JO BERKSETH-ROJAS DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00948-D (N.D. Tex., April 17, 2020) arises from the refusal of the Defendant to pay its insureds including the Plaintiff under its Practice Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of practice, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of practice and continue operations. Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce her practice at Rojas Family Dental due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") and the resultant Executive Orders issued by the Governor of Minnesota that non-emergency or elective dental care that requires Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE") be postponed indefinitely, as well as in order to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. In the Income Coverage Form for its insured, Aspen did not exclude or limit coverage for losses from viruses. Losses due to COVID-19 are a Covered Cause of Loss under Aspen policies. Aspen also agreed to pay for its insureds' actual loss of Practice Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of practice during the "period of restoration" caused by direct physical damage, subject to a Valued Daily Limit. Aspen agreed to "pay for loss of practice income that occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date of direct physical damage." Aspen American Insurance Company is an admitted insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in the State of Texas, with its principal place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Ralph D. McBride, Esq. Alex J. Brown, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com – and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com – and – Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com – and – Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com – and- Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com BANK OF AMERICA: Gilder Alleges Discriminatory Background Check --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIE GILDER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00522-UNA (D. Del., April 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against Bank of America for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a result of discriminatory background check policy and practice. Plaintiff also filed this action against Bank of America for Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Relations. Plaintiff applied for the position of Collections and Recovery Specialist within Bank of America in or around late September 2017. Plaintiff was qualified for the position for which he was hired but he received a letter from Bank of America on September 22, 2017 stating "he may be denied a position with Bank of America based on information obtained from the FBI and/or possible additional court research." According to the complaint, Defendant wrongly discriminated against Plaintiff due to his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's Prospective Economic Relations when it intentionally and wrongfully rescinded his employment offer. The Defendant rescinded Plaintiff's employment pursuant to its background check policy, which has a disparate impact on African American individuals and is neither job related nor consistent with business necessity. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele D. Allen, Esq. Emily A. Biffen, Esq. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES 4250 Lancaster Pike Suit 230 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 234-8600 Facsimile: (302) 234-8602 Email: michele@allenlaborlaw.com emily@allenlaborlaw.com BAYPORT CREDIT UNION: Barker Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- IRWIN BARKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAYPORT CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00195-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., April 17, 2020) is a class action brought by Plaintiff to assert claims in his own right, and in his capacity as the class representative of all other persons similarly situated after Defendant wrongfully charged Plaintiff and the Class Members overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds ("NSF") fees. The complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to, inter alia, BayPort's policy and practice of 1) assessing an overdraft or NSF fee on transactions when there was enough money in the checking account to cover (pay for) the transactions presented for payment; and 2) charging repeat NSF fees on the same electronic item. The charging of such overdraft and NSF fees breaches BayPort's contracts with its members, who include Plaintiff and the members of the Class. The charging for such overdraft fees also violates federal law. The Defendant failed to describe its actual overdraft service in its Opt-In Agreement by, inter alia, failing to describe accurately in its Opt-In Agreement the actual method by which BayPort calculates its overdraft fees, and because BayPort also violated or did not fulfill other prerequisites of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, before charging overdraft fees for automated teller machine (ATM) and non-recurring debit card transactions. Bayport Credit Union is a member-owned, full-service financial institution with branches in Virginia and headquartered in Newport News, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. Kevin Biniazan, Esq. BREIT CANTOR GRANA BUCKNER 7130 Glen Forest Drive, Ste. 400 Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (757) 622-6000 Facsimile: (757)299-8022 Email: jeffrey@breitcantor.com jsheldon@breitcantor.com kbiniazan@breitcantor.com – and – Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1275 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com – and – Emily J. Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 N. Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 Email: ejk@mccunewright.com BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MELINDA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEYER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01677-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all natural persons to whom Beyer & Associates, LLC mailed a written communication to the Complaint to an address in the State of Wisconsin during a period beginning November 13, 2018 and ending December 4, 2019"; and 2. appointing herself to represent the putative class members; and 3. appointing her attorneys, Stern Thomasson LLP, as class counsel. The Plaintiff contends that Beyer mailed an initial collection letter to her, which was dated August 30, 2019, and which sought to collect an alleged debt. The Letter is a template letter that Beyer uses to collect debts from Wisconsin residents. The Letter failed to clearly and accurately identify the name of the creditor to whom the Debt was owed. She adds that by failing to clearly or accurately identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(2), Beyer left unsophisticated consumers, like her, in doubt as to whom the alleged debt is owed and whether it was legitimate.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Katelyn B. Busby, Esq STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com philip@sternthomasson.com francis@sternthomasson.com katelyn@sternthomasson.com BP WEST COAST: J. Court Seeks Protective Order to Stop Deposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PERSIAN GULF INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY LLC; EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC (D/B/A SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US); EXXONMOBIL REFINING & SUPPLY COMPANY; VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY; CONOCOPHILLIPS; ALON USA ENERGY, INC. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, and JAMIE COURT, the Nonparty, Case No. 2:20-mc-00039, the nonparty Jamie Court moves the Court for an order: 1. granting a protective order precluding a deposition of himself, or in the alternative to limit the scope of such deposition; 2. requiring the Defendants to pay Consumer Watchdog's attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the deposition subpoena served on him, including the preparation of this Motion and supporting documents. Consumer Watchdog certifies that on March 9, 2020, it conferred in good faith with counsel for Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, LLC, appearing on behalf of all the Defendants, in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, but was unable to reach agreement. Mr. Jamie Court is the President of the charitable non-profit organization Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog advocates for taxpayer and consumer interests, with a focus on insurance, health care, political reform, privacy and energy. BP West provides oil exploration and production services. Chevron provides energy services. Tesoro Refining refines and markets petroleum products. The Defendants are doing business in the oil and petroleum industry.[BN] Nonparty Jamie Court is represented by: Jerry Flanagan, Esq. Benjamin Powell, Esq. Daniel L. Sternberg, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 Facsimile: (310) 861-0862 E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org ben@consumerwatchdog.org danny@consumerwatchdog.org BROWN UNIVERSITY: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MAXWELL D. KOZLOV and BENJAMIN D. BOSIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. BROWN UNIVERSITY IN PROVIDENCE IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, alias, Case No. 1:19-cv-00028-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. granting final certification of the Fair Labor Standards collective class for settlement purposes only; 2. granting final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; 3. conditionally dismissing the matter with prejudice, no interest, no costs, subject to and conditioned upon the Defendants' full and timely compliance with the provisions of the approved Settlement Agreement, in particular, the distribution of the Gross Settlement Proceeds; and, 4. reserving jurisdiction over the within action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The collective class was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 2, 2019. Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in Providence, Rhode Island.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. Chloe A. Davis, Esq. 2374 Post Road, Ste. 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-9690 E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com cad@sinapilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Jusczyk, Esq. Barry J. Miller, Esq. Hillary Massey, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Two Seaport Lane, Ste. 300 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 E-mail: mjusczyk@seyfarth.com bmiller@seyfarth.com hmassey@seyfarth.com CALIFORNIA: Jones Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Forrest Lee Jones, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Forrest Jones, et al. v. Ralph Diaz, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-07814-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is seeking a remedy for two years during which they and all other people sentenced to an indeterminate life term for a nonviolent third strike offense were deprived of their early parole eligibility in violation of the California and United States Constitutions. All California prisoners convicted and sentenced for nonviolent crimes--including those sentenced under California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" Law--were made eligible for early parole consideration in January 2017 by amendments to the state constitution enacted as part of Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Despite these amendments to the state constitution, officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically stripped nonviolent third strike offenders of this eligibility until January 2019, the Plaintiffs argue. The Defendants' regulations, which categorically excluded inmates sentenced under the Three Strikes law from parole consideration under Section 32, stripped all nonviolent third strike offenders of access to the "fair procedures" that the Due Process Clause requires. The Plaintiffs now seek compensation for the harm caused by this violation of their constitutional rights and for the two years they waited to obtain the parole eligibility that California's voters had granted them by enacting Section 32. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons, who remain incarcerated because the Defendants refused for two years to start holding parole hearings for them, also seek to avoid an additional three years of delay under the schedule that the Defendants have set for clearing the resulting backlog of their hearings. The appellate case is captioned as Forrest Jones, et al. v. Ralph Diaz, et al., Case No. 20-15795, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Dennis Barnes, Rodrigo Ruben Escarcega and Forrest Lee Jones' opening brief is due on June 25, 2020; -- Appellees Ralph Diaz and Scott Kernan's answering brief is due on July 27, 2020; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants FORREST LEE JONES, RODRIGO RUBEN ESCARCEGA and DENNIS BARNES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael William Bien, Esq. Ernest Galvan, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: mbien@rbgg.com egalvan@rbgg.com Defendants-Appellees RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in his individual and official capacities, and SCOTT KERNAN, in his individual capacity, are represented by: Jeffrey Thomas Fisher, Esq. Cassandra Jean Shryock, Esq. AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 510-3568 COLUMBIA MIYABI: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rich FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Christopher Rich, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Christopher Rich, et al. v. Columbia Miyabi Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02148-BHH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Rich, et al. v. Columbia Miyabi Inc., Case No. 20-1486, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER RICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE 147 Wappoo Creek Drive Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com Defendants-Appellees COLUMBIA MIYABI INC., et al., are represented by: Molly Hughes Cherry, Esq. NEXSEN PRUET, LLC P. O. Box 486 Charleston, SC 29402-0000 Telephone: (843) 577-9440 E-mail: mcherry@nexsenpruet.com - and - Allan Riley Holmes, Sr., Esq. GIBBS & HOLMES P. O. Box 938 Charleston, SC 29402-0938 Telephone: (843) 722-0033 Facsimile: (843) 722-0114 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DORINDA J. THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS INCORPORATED, an Idaho corporation, Case No.2:19-cv-0300-BRW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying case as a class action; and 2. equitably tolling the statute of limitations. Community Connections was founded in 1985. The company's line of business includes providing one or more of a wide variety of individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or referral services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kammi Mencke Smith, Esq. WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS, a 250 Northwest Boulevard, Suite 206 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Telephone: (208) 667-2103 Facsimile: (208) 765-2121 E-mail: kms@winstoncashatt.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter C. Erbland, Esq. LAKE CITY LAW GROUP PLLC 435 W Hanley Ave. Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 Telephone: 208 664-8115 E-mail: perbland@lclattorneys.com CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Coyle Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN COYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00907 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited automated text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant has violated TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent, the complaint says. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent him two unsolicited, automated text messages on Dec. 10, 2019, and another two text messages on Dec. 17, 2019, to his telephone number. The Defendant operates http://www.wish.com/,an online mobile shopping platform, which enables customers to purchase products from merchants all over the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 800 400 6808 Facsimile: 800 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com yana@kazlg.com COUNTRY THUNDER: Faces Fitzpatrick Suit Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Thunder Holdings. The case is captioned as Jacqueline A. Fitzpatrick, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, and the General Public and Acting in the Public Interest v. Country Thunder Holdings, LLC; Country Thunder Florida, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03571-MWF-AGR (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging breach of contract. Country Thunder is a music festival brand that hosts several concerts in North America each year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS LAW GROUP 888 West 6th Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-1363 Facsimile: (888) 800-2949 E-mail: michael@geragoslaw.com matthew@geragoslaw.com - and - Reza Sina, Esq. SINA LAW GROUP 3727 West Magnolia Boulevard, No. 277 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 957-2057 Facsimile: (425) 409-0763 E-mail: reza@sinalawgroup.com CRANDALL DRILLING: Faces Sposato Suit Over Upaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Sposato, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Crandall Drilling & Pump Service, LLC, and Howard Crandall, Case No. 1:20-cv-01197 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado Minimum Wage as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and others regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendants. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff one and one-half times his base hourly rate for some hours worked over 40 in each week, but not for all hours worked over 40 in each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from September 2015 until January 2020 as a foreman. The Defendant's primary business is providing water well services, such as drilling and pump repair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: april@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CRESCENT DRILLING: Court Cond. Certified Oilfield Workers Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RITZ JOHN HOEFLEIN III and RAUL SOLIS III v. CRESCENT DRILLING AND PRODUCTION, INC., CRESCENT DRILLING FOREMAN, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-01194-FB-ESC (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.Chestney entered an order: 1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice; 2. conditionally certifying a class of: "all oilfield workers who provided services to or on behalf of Crescent Drilling & Production and/or Crescent Drilling Foreman and were staffed to Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation or Pioneer Natural Resources Company during the past 3 years who were classified as independent contractors and paid on a day-rate basis with no overtime"; and 3. requiring the Parties within 14 days after entry of the Order, on or before May 5, 2020, to meet and confer regarding the substance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and to submit to the Court their proposed notice for approval in light of this Order. If the parties successfully reach an agreement regarding the notice, they should notify the Court of the same. If there are portions of the notice on which the parties do not agree, the parties should clarify which portions of the notice are agreed and which are disputed, and for the latter, the parties should brief their respective positions to the Court for resolution. The Court said, "The Court agrees with the Defendants on this point, that a class encompassing oilfield workers with differing job titles and assignments to diverse customers would not serve the overarching case-management purposes of conditional certification under the FLSA. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs have established that a more limited class of oilfield workers is entitled to notice of this lawsuit, as the Plaintiffs' declarations establish that there is a class of similarly situated workers who are victim to a single pay policy. The Court will therefore limit the class to those workers staffed to Sanchez and Pioneer, where Plaintiffs worked." The case is a putative collective action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Actto recover unpaid overtime compensation. Crescent Drilling offers engineering and project management services to cover all functions required for an operator to manage onshore and offshore properties.[CC] CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Mendes Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTINA MENDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01358 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a driver from January 2018 to December 2019 and was paid on an hourly basis and on a biweekly basis by direct deposit. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for the hours she worked in excess of 40 per week at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. Allegedly, Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff as required by the FLSA and continue its unlawful pay practice. Plaintiff seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs. Crestwood Transportation LLC is a trucking business that provides distribution of crude oil, condensate, water and natural gas liquids products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Tel: (713)222-6775 Fax: (713)222-6739 Emails: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net DARKTRACE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN v. DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; and 2. directing the Parties to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each of the following event (and shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of this Order): -- Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative Class Members. -- Filing deadline for attorneys’ fees and costs motion. -- Filing deadline for incentive payment motion. -- Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys’ fees and costs and incentive payment. -- Filing deadline for final approval motion. -- Final fairness hearing and hearing on motion. The key terms of the parties' settlement are: Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as: "all applicants for employment with and employees of DarkTrace from whom DarkTrace obtained the individual's consent to procure a consumer report using a form document substantially similar to the authorization form signed by Plaintiff; and procured or caused to be procured a consumer report, as defined by the FCRA, between November 5, 2016 and the date the Final Judgment and Order approving this Settlement Agreement is entered by the Court. Settlement Benefits: The parties have agreed to both non-monetary and monetary relief. Cy Pres Distribution: Settlement checks that are undeliverable or not cashed within 60 days of mailing will be void and those funds will be donated to "a recipient to be agreed to by the parties." Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will mail the "Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing" to class members by regular mail within 30 days of the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to submit a request for exclusion is 60 days after the date of the Notice mailing Incentive Award: The Plaintiff as class representative may apply for incentive award of no more than $15,000. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Class Counsel may file an application for attorneys’ fees not to exceed $150,000.[CC] DEFENSE TAX: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHEN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 6, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class; and 2. granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery to identify members of the class and determine the amount of damages they are entitled to prior to the entry of final judgment. Defense Tax is a tax relief company based in Los Angeles, California.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative are: Michael R. Parker, Esq. M.R. PARKER LAW, APC 6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 Telephone: (818) 334-5711 Facsimile: (818) 394-6448 E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com DELTA AIRLINES: Rojas Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Noel Moran Rojas, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Noel Rojas v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-00665-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of passenger air transportation, by uniformly and unlawfully including a charge for the Tax to Exempt Travelers on flights between the United States and Mexico, in violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs are Mexican citizens, who now live or previously lived in the United States. They represent a putative class of primarily Mexican citizens who, like the Plaintiffs themselves, flew to Mexico from the United States as ticketed passengers on one or more of the Defendants' airlines. The appellate case is captioned as Noel Rojas v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. 20-1480, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Noel Moran Rojas, Miguel Hilarion Jimenez, Olivia Isabel Gonzales, Mayra Luisa Castillo Casteneda, LuzMaria Armendaiz De Arroyo, Patricio Mercado, Alexandra Almanza, Ruben Alfonso Arroyo, and Teresa Estrada-Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Stephen W. Abbott, Esq. Brent T. Caldwell, Esq. Christopher Faucett, Esq. Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq. PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT, PLCC 8441 Gulf Freeway Houston, TX 77017 Telephone: (832) 743-9260 E-mail: sabbott@pfalawfirm.com - and - Jason H. Kim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com - and - Nicholas A. Morrow, Esq. John D. Sheppard, Esq. MORROW & SHEPPARD LLP 3701 Kirby Drive Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 489-1206 - and - Tejinder Singh, Esq. GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. 7475 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 362-0636 Defendants-Appellees DELTA AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, et al., are represented by: Solesse L. Altman, Esq. Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE 3900 IBM Tower, 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-4501 Telephone: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: altman@bmelaw.com lowrey@bmelaw.com - and - Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq. Alyse Lauren Prawde, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA 6404 Ivy Lane Greenbelt, MD 20770-0000 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 - and - Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq. Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq. Eli Joseph Litoff, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 3 1st National Plaza 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 417-8700 - and - Gregory Keith Wells, Esq. SHADOAN MICHAEL & WELLS, LLP 108 Park Avenue Rockville, MD 20850-0000 Telephone: (301) 762-5150 - and - Molly M. Barron, Esq. Sadik Huseny, Esq. Anna M. Rathbun, Esq. Daniel M. Wall, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 - and - J. Gordon Cooney, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Humburto Padilla Gonzalez, Esq. Jared A. Wilkerson, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 890-5164 - and - Raechel Keay Kummer, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (202) 373-6001 - and - Milton Roy Goldberg, Esq. Brandon R. Nagy, Esq. Tracey Michelle Ohm, Esq. STINSON LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 728-3005 - and - Noah A. Brumfield, Esq. Jaime Manuel Crowe, Esq. J. Mark Gidley, Esq. Jaclyn I. Phillips, Esq. WHITE & CASE, LLP 701 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-0000 Telephone: (202) 626-3698 DIN TAI: Garcia Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA & Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUANA GARCIA, individually and acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. DIN TAI FUNG RESTAURANT, INC., DIN TAI FUNG (SF) RESTAURANT, LLC, SELENA SOTO, and ANTONIO [LNU] individually; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02919 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged systemic failure to pay California non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and the Class, their overtime wages and minimum wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to compensate her and similarly situated employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to pay proper wages under the FLSA, they incurred general damages in the form of lost overtime wages. The Defendants operate restaurants in Santa Clara, Santa Monica, and Torrance, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Juan Gamboa, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com JGamboa@TheMMLawFirm.com FIFTH THIRD: Cert. of Breach of Contract & TILA Classes Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation, Case No. 1:12-cv-00851-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying classes: Breach of Contract Class: "all persons in the United States who enrolled in Fifth Third's Early Access Loan Program prior to May 1, 2013 and took out at least one Early Access Loan" ; and Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Class: "all persons in the United States who were enrolled in Fifth Third's Early Access Loan Program from August 3, 2011 through April 30, 2013." Specifically excluded from the putative Classes are the Defendant, any entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, any of the Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of such persons' immediate families, and the presiding judge(s) in this case, their staff, and his, her, or their immediate family. 2. appointing themselves as representatives of the Classes; and 3. appointing Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei, Stuart E. Scott of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP, and Jason Whittemore of Wagner McLaughlin, P.A. as counsel for the Classes pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). This case arises from a putative nationwide class action alleging a widespread and serious breach of contract and violation of the Truth in Lending Act involving one of Ohio's largest banks, Fifth Third Bank. Fifth Third is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, at Fifth Third Center. It is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, a bank holding company.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Anna A. Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com ahaac@tzlegal.com - and - Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile (216) 696-3924 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com - and - Jason K. Whittemore, Esq. WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, PA 601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813)-225-4000 Facsimile: (813) 225-4010 E-mail: Jason@wagnerlaw.com FM JANITORIAL: Underpays Dishwashers, Vondergathen et al Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DARCY VONDERGATHEN and ANDRE GROVER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC. #2, JOSE RODRIGUEZ and MARIA JOYA, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00064-FL (E.D.N.C., April 16, 2020) arises from Defendants alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Dishwashers, Vondergathen from 2016 through 2019 and Grover in 2018 and 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, often working in excess of 60 hours per week. The restaurants where Plaintiffs worked as dishwashers paid Defendant at a higher rate for the hours worked by Plaintiffs and Defendants then paid Plaintiffs. However, Defendants did not pay that higher overtime rate to Plaintiffs or their coworkers, and did not provide them with any sort of pay statement that said what the pay period was, the number of hours worked during that pay period, or their hourly rate. Jose Rodriguez and Maria Joya own and operate FM Janitorial Services, Inc. FM Janitorial Services, Inc. is a staffing company which supplies workers to various restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clermont F. Ripley, Esq. Carol L. Brooke, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 Tel: (919) 856-2154 Emails: clermont@ncjustice.org carol@ncjustice.org FORT DEARBORN: Fails to Pay Overtime for Operators, Harrison Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HARRISON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FORT DEARBORN COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02425 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf all other similarly situated collective members, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has violated the wage laws by engaging in illegal policies and practices of altering and shaving time off hourly factory workers' time records, thereby failing to compensate them of overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per week. Harrison was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid printing press operator from approximately July 2015 through approximately May 28, 2019 at Defendant's Palm City, Florida plant. Fort Dearborn Company is a prime label supplier to the consumer goods marketplace and operates 20 facilities around the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-Mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com GAIN CAPITAL: Franchi Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH A. SCHENK, GLENN H. STEVENS, TOM BEVILACQUA, CHRISTOPHER W. CALHOUN, ALEX GOOR, DOUG RHOTEN, CHRISTOPHER S. SUGDEN, and PETER QUICK, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00519-UNA (D. Del., April 17, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff owns GAIN Capital common stock. According to the complaint, the Board of Directors of GAIN Capital have caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement with INTL FCStone on February 26, 2020 in which GAIN Capital stockholders will receive $6.00 in cash for each share of GAIN Capital common stock they own. However, in the proxy statement filed on April 10, 2020 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, material information were omitted which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose information regarding the Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor GCA Advisors LLC, and whether the Company entered into any confidentiality agreements. Also, the omitted information are important to stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff and the Class claim that they were threatened with irreparable harm because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement. Joseph A. Schenk is Chairman of the Board of GAIN Capital Holdings. Glenn H. Stevens is the President, Chief Executive Officer, and a director of the Company. Tom Bevilacqua, Christopher W. Calhoun, Alex Goor, Doug Rhoten, Christopher S. Sugden, and Peter Quick are Board of Directors of the Company. GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. provides trading technology and execution services to retail and institutional investors worldwide. [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 GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Fund suit remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two actions. In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power business. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018. In August 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In September 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Drop Varga Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the Varga class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in connection with the oversight of the GE RSP. It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through January 19, 2018 or later. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class suit related to the GE Retirement Savings Plan, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. "Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the oversight of the GE RSP, and those class actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period. Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in their oversight of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options for plan participants and by charging higher management fees than some alternative funds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. We believe we have defenses to the claims and are responding accordingly." General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Tri-State Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company continues to defend itself in the Tri-State case, wherein an amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In August 2019, a putative class action (the Tri-State case) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI). It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the former BHI board, management and shareholders in connection with BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas Business in July 2017. The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI shareholders during the period between October 7, 2016 and July 5, 2017. In October 2019, the City of Providence filed a complaint containing allegations substantially similar to those in the Tri-State complaint. The cases were consolidated in November 2019, and in December 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which is similar to the prior complaints but does not include fraud claims against GE. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GNC HOLDINGS: Amavizca Sues over Fake Glucosamine Sulfate Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICO AMAVIZCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03545 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased bottles of "Glucosamine Sulfate 550," GNC's private label 550mg Glucosamine Sulfate product, over the past 4 years. Plaintiff believed that the product labels accurately represented the contents of the packaged supplements. However, when Plaintiff sent some of GNC's Glucosamine Sulfate 550 which he has purchased in or around May 2019 to a laboratory for analysis in March 2020, the lab result found no trace of Glucosamine Sulfate that is contrary to the claims on the product label. The complaint claims that Plaintiff has suffered damage and detriment as a result of GNC's misrepresentations, and will continue to be harmed by having no sustainable means of verifying the contents of the GNC Glucosamine Sulfate Products. Plaintiff demands a combination of damages and injunctive relief. GNC Holdings, Inc. is one of the foremost nationwide retailers of dietary supplements and routinely markets and sells its products in Los Angeles County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310)201-9150 Fax: (310)201-9160 Emails: jrotter@glancylaw.com dmanning@glancylaw.com - and – Carl L. Stine, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212)759-4600 Fax: (212)486-2093 Emails: cstine@wolfpopper.com minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com aadesanya@wolfpopper.com GREWAL LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GREWAL LAW; WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.; and SGMS, INC. dba LEGAL CONVERSION CENTER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03674 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendants contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7262 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services, beginning in or around January 2020, using automatic telephone dialing system. Defendant Legal Conversion Center directly called Plaintiff for the purposes of generating leads in the Roundup litigation, by way of cold calling consumers using an automated telephone dialing system. As part of their campaign to solicit their services to clients, Grewal Law and Weitz & Luxenberg hired Legal Conversion Center to generate clients on the firm's behalf. Legal Conversion Center then did so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, acting on behalf of the other Defendants. Plaintiff has never sought the services of counsel for purpose of bringing a Roundup claim and did not provide prior express consent. Moreover, Plaintiff has no relationship with any of the three defendants that would permit direct attorney solicitations by telephone of this nature under the Model Rules, or to create an established business relationship. Grewal Law is a full-service law firm, providing clients with personalized and reliable legal representation. Weitz & Luxenberg is a large personal injury and medical malpractice law firm headquartered in New York, specializing in asbestos litigation. Legal Conversion Center is a call center base in Texas.[BN] The 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 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com HARRY'S NURSES: Files Cert. Petition in Gayle FLSA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled HARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, HARRY DORVILIER, Petitioners v. CLAUDIA GAYLE, Individually, On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and as Class Representative, et al., Respondents, Case No. 19-1210. Response is due on May 13, 2020. Petitioners Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case titled Gayle, et al. v. Harry's Nurses Registry, et al., Case No. 18 3472, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The question presented is: Is the finding that the employer has violated Section 206 or Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq, a condition precedent that must occur before an employee's private right of action is triggered under Section 216(b)? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is an action by nurses claiming alleged unpaid overtime from a nursing staffing company and its owner. This litigation began in 2007, when a nurse named Claudia Gayle, and other nurses recruited to join Ms. Gayle's lawsuit, sued Mr. Dorvilier and his company under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 (West) et. seq, claiming they were due unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and (for plaintiffs' counsel who started the lawsuit) attorneys' fees. A central issue in the litigation was whether the nurses who sued were employees entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Defendants contended that they were not; that Harry's Nurses acted as a referral service, not an employer, and that the FLSA therefore did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims. The District court ruled that the nurses were employees under the FLSA, however, granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and entering judgments against defendants for $931,959.39 (in compensatory damages plus attorneys' fees). The Defendants appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Gayle v. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc., 594 F. App'x 714, 716 (2d Cir. 2014). Defendant petitioned for a writ of certiorari, but this Court denied the petition. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. v. Gayle, 135 S. Ct. 2059 (U.S., May 04, 2015). The litigation continued over enforcement of the judgment. Defendants contended that plaintiffs' counsel did not properly collect the judgment, moving in the District court to remedy the improper collection by plaintiffs' counsel and to impose sanctions on plaintiffs' counsel for counsel's charged improper accounting of the monies collected (defendants contended that plaintiffs' counsel effectively "double dipped" on the counsel fees to which he was entitled and thereby collected from defendants more than was legally owed under the FLSA). Plaintiffs' counsel opposed defendants' motion. Following receipt of a Report and Recommendations by United States Magistrate Court Judge Marilyn Go, and objections thereto by the parties, the District court, by Order and Decision of September 30, 2018, adopted in full the 9 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations and denied the Defendants' motion for sanctions and related relief. The Defendants appealed the District court's order, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. In affirming the District court's decision to deny relief to defendants on the charged improper collection of the judgment by plaintiffs' counsel, the Court of Appeals noted and relied on the prior grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in the litigation and entry of judgments for plaintiffs against defendants for the unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees afforded by the FLSA on which the plaintiff nurses rested their claims for relief.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier are represented by: Michael James Confusione Counsel of Record HEGGE & CONFUSIONE P.O. Box 366 Mullica Hill, NJ 08062 Email: mc@heggelaw.com HERTZ CORP: Fails to Give Meal & Rest Periods, McChristion Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juwana McChristion, an individual v. The Hertz Corporation, a Delaware corporation, dba Hertz Car Rental; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16211 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2020), is brought under the California Labor Code on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants required her and other employees similarly situated, to service between 150 to 200 cars a day to successfully launch "QUICK TURN" program started by the company. She adds that as a result of the 150-200 cars quota she was not provided her daily 10-minute breaks and uninterrupted meal breaks from April 1, 2018, to August 13, 2018. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's manager, Chris Burns, orally promised the Plaintiff and other employees that in lieu of the daily 10 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch breaks, the Defendants will reward them gift cards from Target worth $50.00 per day should the quota of servicing 150 200 cars per day be satisfied by them. The Plaintiff alleges that on July 1, 2018, she started complaining to the Defendants that despite reaching the daily quota she has not been rewarded by Chris Burns the promised gift cards from Target worth $50.00 per day. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as Vehicle Service Attendant from December 2016 to August 13, 2018. Hertz is an American car rental company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq. Antony A. Thomassian, Esq. MERLUZA LAW, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., 27th Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 380-9888 Facsimile: (213) 380-5397 E-mail: ricardo0merluzalaw.com HOST INT'L: Improperly Defers Retirement Pay, Frankenstein Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAN FRANKENSTEIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; COLEMAN LAUERBACH; and DOES NO. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-PJM (D. Md., April 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' refusal to properly defer compensation paid to the Plaintiff and other participants of the HMSHost 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and Trust pursuant to the express terms of the Plan. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants refused, and continue to refuse, to comply with the terms of the Plan with respect to his and the Class's rights to contribute a portion of their reported tips to the Plan based on their deferral elections, and receive benefits based on those contributions. He alleges that the Defendants failed to prudently consider their interpretation and administration of a Plan participant's right to defer reported tips. Instead, he adds, the Defendants appear to have simply adopted an arbitrary position denying Plan participants' rights to defer reported tips based on Host International's tax withholding practices, thereby, risking the qualified status of the Plan. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the benefits due him and the Class under the express terms of the Plan; to enforce his and the Class's rights under the terms of the Plan; to hold the Defendants liable to the Plan for their breaches of fiduciary duties; for injunctive and declaratory relief; and for all other appropriate relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plan had more than $300 million in assets with almost 19,000 active and more than 21,000 total participants as of December 31, 2018. The Plaintiff is a participant of the Plan and has been employed by Host International since July 5, 2011. Host International is a Delaware corporation with its current headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. The Company provides catering services to travelers, offering prepared meals and other food, beverages and merchandise at airports, on toll roads, restaurants, and other travel and entertainment venues. Retirement Committee has the full and complete authority, responsibility, and control over the management, administration, and operation of the Plan pursuant to the Plan Document. Coleman Lauerbach is the Vice President of Human Resources at Host International.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com IANTHUS CAPITAL: Finch Sues Over 62% Decline in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- DONALD W. FINCH, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against- iANTHUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., GOTHAM GREEN PARTNERS, HADLEY C. FORD, JULIUS JOHN KALCEVICH, and JASON ADLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03135 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020) is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of iAnthus, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 14, 2018 and April 6, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2018, the Company entered into the $50 million 2018 Debenture Agreement with GGP. Among other things, that agreement provided for the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 from the 2018 Debenture proceeds to pay one year's interest on the 2018 Debentures in the event of an iAnthus default. On September 30, 2019, iAnthus and GGP entered into the Amended Debenture Agreement, which provided an additional $20 million to the Company. The Amended Debenture Agreement included the provision from the 2018 Debenture Agreement that provided for the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 to pay one year's interest under the Amended Debenture Agreement in the event of an iAnthus default. On April 6, 2020, iAnthus issued a press release announcing that it did not make the applicable interest payments to GGP under the Amended Debenture Agreement, due on March 31, 2020. The Company ascribed its inability to make the payments to the "decline in the overall public equity cannabis markets, coupled with the extraordinary market conditions that began in Q1 2020 due to the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 ("COVID-19") pandemic" that caused liquidity constraints for iAnthus. The Company stated that it had "attempted in good faith to negotiate with the holders of the Secured Debentures for temporary relief of interest payments, but the parties were not able to reach a satisfactory agreement" and, as a result, "iAnthus and its subsidiaries did not fund the March 31, 2020 interest payment totaling $4.4 million to the holders of the Secured Debentures and Unsecured Debentures. . . ." On news of the default, the price of the Company's common stock fell 62% from a close of $0.469 per share on April 3, 2020, the last trading day before the announcement, to a close of $0.179 per share on April 6, 2020, on unusually high trading volume. According to the complaint, Defendants' materially false and misleading statements concerning the withholding, escrow and intended use of the $5,722,222.22 in proceeds in the 2018 Debenture Agreement and the Amended Debenture Agreement were publicly disclosed and available on the CSA System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval ("SEDAR"). The members of the Class reasonably relied on Defendants' materially false and misleading statements concerning the intended use and availability of the escrowed funds to protect against an event of default in connection with the Company's interest obligations to GGP. If such funds had been released pursuant to the terms of the Escrow Agreement, were exhausted and/or were otherwise unavailable for payment of the March 2020 interest payments to GGP, Defendants intentionally, or recklessly, failed to disclose such information rendering the earlier statements concerning the availability of the escrowed funds materially false and misleading. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides financing and related management and advisory services to state-licensed operators engaged in the cultivation, manufacturing, and dispensing of cannabis in states throughout the United States. Gotham Green Partners is a California-based private equity firm that focuses on deploying capital into cannabis and cannabis-related enterprises. GGP manages a diversified portfolio of investments, investing across the cannabis value chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rigrodskylong.com tjm@rigrodskylong.com – and – Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market Street Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com IANTHUS CAPITAL: Riback Sues over Stock Losses, False Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM RIBACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iANTHUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., GOTHAM GREEN PARTNERS, HADLEY C. FORD, JULIUS JOHN KALCEVICH, and JASON ADLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03044 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff and the Class have acquired iAnthus common stock between May 14, 2018 and April 6, 2020. According to the complaint, iAnthus is heavily leveraged because it is dependent upon equity and debt financing to fund its aggressive expansion plans throughout the U.S. The company entered into a $50 million Debenture Agreement with GGP in May 2018 and an additional $20 million Amended Debenture Agreement on September 30, 2019. However, iAnthus announced on April 6, 2020 that it did not make the applicable interest payments to GGP under the Amended Debenture Agreement due on March 31, 2020 because there was a decline in the overall public equity cannabis markets, coupled with the extraordinary market conditions that began in Q1 2020 due to the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 pandemic that caused liquidity constraints for iAnthus. Consequently, the price of the Company's common stock fell. The complaint asserts that since Ford and Kalcevich have direct and indirect influence and control in the decision-making of the Company, the content and dissemination of the 2018 Debenture Agreement and the Amended Debenture Agreement that were executed by them were allegedly false and misleading in connection with the Interest Payment Escrow, thereby violating the Federal securities laws. Hadley C. Ford is the co-founder of iAnthus. Julius John Kalcevich is the Chief Financial Officer of iAnthus. Jason Adler is the Managing Partner of GGP. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. is a holding company which provides Shareholders with diversified exposure to best-in-class licensed cannabis cultivators, processors and dispensaries throughout the U.S. Gotham Green Partners (GGP) is a private equity firm that focuses on deploying capital into cannabis and cannabis-related enterprises. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. Macfall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Emails: sdr@rigrodskylong.com tjm@rigrodskylong.com - and – Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market St., Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 507-6085 Fax: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com IAS LOGISTICS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Jones Employment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, filed a petition for permission to appeal from the District Court's Remand Order dated April 15, 2020, in the lawsuit styled LARHONDA JONES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. IAS LOGISTICS DFW, LLC, d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02510, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") and sought statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation alleged. Specifically, Ms. Jones alleges that Pinnacle violated BIPA by: (1) failing to provide a retention schedule and guideline for permanently destroying biometric information as required under 740 ILCS Section14/15(a); (2) failing to inform her in writing that her information was collected and stored, as required under 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(1); (3) failing to inform her in writing of the purpose and length of time for which her information was being collected, stored, and used, as required under 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(2); and (4) failing to obtain a written release before collecting, using, and storing her biometric information, as required under 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(3). The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff Larhonda Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. John C Kunze, Esq. Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq. Mara Ann Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355−7590 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com Defendant IAS Logistics DFW, LLC doing business as Pinnacle Logistics, is represented by: Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq. Danielle M. Kays, Esq. Joseph A Donado, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460−5000 Email: rmcardle@seyfarth.com dkays@seyfarth.com jdonado@seyfarth.com JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Drive Thrus ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Szwanek and James Lopez II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02953 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), seeks to put an end to the systemic civil rights violations committed by the Defendant in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act against visually-impaired people in the United States. Jack in the Box denies the visually-impaired equal access to the goods and services that Jack in the Box provides during "late-night" operating times at thousands of their restaurants throughout the United States, according to the complaint. In an effort to increase profits and make their products available to the public for longer periods of time, Jack in the Box restaurants offer "late-night" hours. During these late evening and early morning operating times, patrons are not allowed to physically enter Jack in the Box restaurants and must access Jack in the Box products and services via "drive-thru" windows. These drive-thrus are only accessible by motor vehicle and are the exclusive means by which a customer can independently purchase Jack in the Box products during late-night hours. Despite being accessible to the general public, Jack in the Box drive thrus lack any meaningful accommodation for visually-impaired individuals who are unable to operate motor vehicles, says the complaint. Since they are unable to drive, and because it is not safe for them to walk through the drive-thru, visually-impaired individuals are totally precluded from accessing the Defendant's products during late-night hours. The Plaintiffs' eyesight has been compromised and the condition renders them unable to legally operate a motor vehicle. The Defendant owns, operates and/or leases the well-known chain of restaurants known as "Jack in the Box."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504)534-5005 Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com - and - Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. 920 Beach Park Blvd., #39 Foster City, CA 94404 Phone: (415) 845-8556 Email: ggoffin@glenngoffinlaw.com JOAMAR INC: Russo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Noemi Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOAMAR, INC. dba CANDY CAT TOO, a California Corporation; SAUL PEREZ, an individual; INDALECIO J. PEREZ, JR., an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03939 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants' evasion of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Defendants also illegally absconded with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the prior three years to the filing of this Complaint. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at Canoga Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: 310-507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com JOHN STEWART COMPANY: Faces Bryant Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- KNAKALIA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHN STEWART COMPANY, a California Corporation; JACK D. GARDNER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584180 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by improperly calculating and failing to pay all amounts due to the Plaintiff and class members for wages earned, including minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by JSC from January 1, 2019, until May 29, 2019, as a non-exempt onsite property manager. JSC owned the apartment complex, located in Panorama City, where the Plaintiff was the onsite property manager. The Plaintiff was the only onsite manager for 55 units.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Jones, Esq. Zachary Crosner, Esq. Brittany Armstrong, Esq. Michael Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (818) 700-9973 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com brittany@ecrosnerlegal.com mike@crosneriegal.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Noohi Fraud Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. The case is captioned as Narguess Noohi, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws. Johnson & Johnson engages in the research and development of products. The company provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com KELLOGG CO: Calif. Class Suit over Product Statements Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action against Kellogg Company related to statements made on packaging for certain products continues, as the plaintiff failed to gain the Northern District of California's approval of a settlement, according to Kellogg's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the Northern District of California relating to statements made on packaging for certain products. In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in dispute. On October 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to approve a settlement. Subsequent to the end of the year, the Court denied without prejudice the plaintiff's motion to approve the settlement. Kellogg said, "As of December 28, 2019, the Company concluded that the contingency related to the unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a liability being recorded. This litigation, including any potential settlement, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes as the litigation continues." Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals, cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks, frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan. LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS: Sypherd Sues Alleging Age Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Sypherd, Patricia Brummett, and Kimberly Watt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 5:20-cv-00921 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), is brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act to correct the Defendants' unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to a class of unidentified individuals, who were denied employment by the Defendants because of their age. The Defendants have unlawfully subjected a class of aggrieved applicants of front of the house hostesses, servers, and bartenders and other publicly visible nonmanagerial positions ("Covered Positions") to an ongoing pattern or practice of discriminatory failure to hire such persons because of their age, 40 years and older (hereafter "the protected age group"), according to the complaint. The Defendants have unlawfully maintained hiring policies and practices for giving preference to younger employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants. As a result of these biases against older workers, older servers and older workers in restaurant facing positions, who are equally or more qualified, have been systematically excluded from employment opportunities that are afforded to other individuals, who work for Lazy Dog, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are individuals over the age of 40 years. Lazy Dog is a casual diner founded in 2003, and operates in eight States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 170 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 238-4720 Fax: (619) 238-5260 Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com LEE ESTOCK: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as WESLEY A. MASSEY v. LEE ESTOCK, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00659-SPB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Susan Paradise Baxter entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to further amend; 2. dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 3. dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion to Preserve Evidence and Prevent Spoliation; and 4. directing the Clerk to mark "CLOSED" the civil action.[CC] LEGACY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Phillips Claims --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Georgi Corporation and KAMRAN KURANI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01608 (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly paid pizza delivery driver from approximately June 2017 to October 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently worked approximately 40 hours or more per pay period during his employment with Defendants, with the majority of his time spent on the road making deliveries. Also, Defendants required their delivery drivers to bear the "out-of-pocket" expenses, including gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and repairs. Allegedly, Defendants failed to fully reimburse their drivers for the full amount of their driving expenses, thereby also failing to paid them complete minimum wage compensation. Kamran Kurani is the owner of Legacy Pizza and has substantial control over terms and conditions of drivers' work. Legacy Pizza, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut operates approximately 8 Pizza Hut restaurant franchises in Georgia and Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407)420-1414 Fax: (407)245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com LIFE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Walker Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JOYCE WALKER; KIM BRUCE HOWLETT; MURIEL SPOONER; TALINE BEDELIAN; OSCAR GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 19-55241, 19-55242. (9th Cir.) Plaintiffs argue that Life Insurance of the Southwest's (LSW) illustrations of potential earnings violate California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because they do not define or detail the meaning of policy column headings reading Guaranteed Values at 2.00% and Guaranteed Values at 2.50%. Plaintiffs also allege the illustrations promised to eliminate a certain administrative fee after ten years, and that the illustrations fail to describe this nonguaranteed element in violation of California law. Plaintiffs allegedly relied on the illustrations in deciding to purchase policies. Plaintiffs proposed two alternative class definitions, both describing California residents who purchased certain LSW policies during a specified period. The narrower of the two classes was limited to recipients of pre-application illustrations: All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and who received an illustration on or before the date of policy application. The district court certified the narrow class over the same objection LSW advanced in 2012 and 2013 regarding the later-decertified class: that Plaintiffs' claims were incapable of class-wide proof because the court would have to individually establish each Plaintiff's receipt of a pre-application illustration. LSW argued that certification would be improper under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because individualized questions predominated over class-wide ones. The court rejected LSW's concern and responded to it, in part by citing our decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1133 (9th Cir. 2017), which clarified that Rule 23 neither provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class certification. Defendant appeals the class certification order. LSW asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's certification order. It alleges the district court committed legal error by (1) misapplying Briseno and (2) manipulating the class definition to certify the narrower of Plaintiffs' two proposed classes even though individualized issues predominate over common ones in contravention of Rule 23(b)(3). LSW articulates two specific concerns, neither of which changes the Appellate Court's decision to affirm. First, LSW argues that (1) Briseno had no impact on Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, and (2) the district court improperly relied on Briseno in declining to consider certain issues as part of its predominance analysis. The Ninth Court agrees with LSW's reading of Briseno but conclude that the district court's apparent misunderstanding of the case wrought no legal error. In Briseno, the Appellate Court considered a narrow issue: whether consumers, bringing fraud claims against ConAgra for allegedly misleading cooking-oil labels, needed to demonstrate that there is an administratively feasible means of identifying absent class members before reaching Rule 23(a) and (b)'s class-certification requirements. ConAgra argued that absent consumers would not be able to reliably identify themselves as class members and opposed certification on that basis. The Appellate Court rejected ConAgra's argument. The Appellate Court concluded that a freestanding administrability requirement would conflict with the plain language of Rule 23, because the rule sets forth exhaustive factors a district court must consider in deciding whether to certify a class none of them a freestanding administrability requirement. The Appellate Court further determined, in support of our holding, that Rule 23 already calls upon the district court to consider the likely difficulties of managing a class action as part of its comparative superiority analysis, thereby rendering a separate administrability requirement superfluous. The Ninth Circuit shares LSW's concern that the district court may have misapplied Briseno to preclude consideration of certain issues under predominance. The court in 2013 decertified a class, which appears to have been identical in composition to the class at issue here, based on predominance problems. It reversed course in 2018, ostensibly based on Briseno. In the relevant part of its certification order, the district court rejected LSW's argument that predominance is lacking because determining pre-application receipt requires individualized inquiries by relying on that case. The district court's reliance on Briseno is concerning but, ultimately, inconsequential. The reliance in the end did not prevent the court from undertaking a legally correct class-certification analysis. The court properly considered the key exposure issue whether the allegations supported a reliance presumption, under predominance, holding they did. In the context of superiority, the court further analyzed the logistical difficulties inherent in identifying class members by establishing plaintiff-by-plaintiff exposure to LSW's illustrations. This analysis conforms with Briseno and class-certification law more broadly. The court's reliance on Briseno caused no legal error, rules the Ninth Circuit. Second, LSW objects to the class definition. It argues the district court avoided analyzing the key predominance question, whether class members were exposed to the illustrations in part by limiting class membership to pre-application illustration recipients and thereby improperly embedding the exposure issue into the class definition. The argument is unpersuasive. LSW cites no directly supportive authority, and the contention directly conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent obligating district courts to tailor class definitions in a way that avoids predominance issues. The more apt and complicated question, we think, is whether a district court can, as it did here, define a class in a way that automatically gives rise to a presumption of reliance. This question appears to be one of first impression in our circuit. In our prior UCL class-certification cases, the Appellate Court have relied on allegations and evidence establishing class-wide dissemination of alleged misrepresentations to determine whether a presumption of reliance applies. Can a class definition, which extends membership only to those who were exposed to alleged misrepresentations, automatically trigger the presumption? The Appellate Court cannot think of any good reason why not, or any evils that allegations and evidence of class-wide dissemination could cure that a class definition cannot. The Appellate Court similarly declines to grapple with other related questions lurking in the background including the extent to which a district court must engage with argument or evidence offered to rebut an established presumption of reliance. LSW's appeal concerns a specific issue: whether the district court considered the right questions under the predominance analysis. It does not raise a related issue, which the Appellate Court would review for abuse of discretion if properly raised: whether the district court reached the right answers. Plaintiffs also challenge the certification decision, arguing that the district court erroneously excluded approximately one quarter of Plaintiffs' desired class, consisting of policyholders who received only batch illustrations and not pre-application illustrations. The Appellate Court do not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' argument, because their attempted appeals of the district court's certification and reconsideration orders are untimely and procedurally improper, respectively. Appealing a certification decision is usually straightforward: a party must petition this Court for permission to appeal within fourteen days of the district court order. Second, if the reconsideration order materially changes the original certification decision, the reconsideration order itself as distinct from the original decision becomes appealable. Plaintiffs in such a case effectively are entitled to more time to petition for appeal after they file, and the district court rules on, their motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit AFFIRMED. The full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/vo3p5jj from Leagle.com Noah A. Levine - noah.levine@wilmerhale.com - (argued), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Andrea J. Robinson - andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com - and Timothy J. Perla -timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Matthew T. Martens - matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan A. Shapiro - jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com - Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellant. Brian P. Brosnahan - bbrosnahan@cornerlaw.com - (argued), Cornerstone Law Group, San Francisco, California; Lyn R. Agre - lagre@kasowitz.com - Margaret A. Ziemianek - mziemianek@kasowitz.com - and Veronica Nauts l - vnauts@kasowitz.com - Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Xavier Becerra , Attorney General; Diane S. Shaw , Senior Assistant Attorney General; Lisa W. Chao , Supervising Deputy Attorney; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner of the State of California. LUCKIN INVESTOR: Sterckx Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Christophe Sterckx, Michael Bergenholtz, Vijaya Gopu, and Nirmala Gopu, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luckin Investor Group, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01677 (Filed March 2, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on April 28, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03304-UA to the proceeding. The case was brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Luckin securities from May 17, 2019, through April 2, 2020, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs purchased Luckin securities during the Class Period and were economically damaged thereby. Luckin purports to engage in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks, and pre-made food and beverage items in the People's Republic of China. The Defendants include Mike Farhat; Xin Huang; Chunwei Zuo; Majid Hajizadeh Bashy; Boston Retirement System; Amrik Hira; Fulton County Employees Retirement System; Sjunde Ap-Fonden; Louisiana Sheriff's Pension & Relief Fund; Wei Zuo; Jimmy Chan; Leonard Ross; HAPNEY Investment Management LLC; Mohsen Sajjadieh; Marc Nehorayan; Satyanarayana Kanchanapalli; John Hickey; Regent Mercantile Holdings Limited; James Sproul; Li Tutang; Khaled Abdullah Almdamegh; Chesi Assets Limited Group; Luckin Coffee Inc.; Jenny Zhiya Qian; Reinout Hendrik Schakel; Charles Zhengyao Lu; Jian Liu; Jinyi Guo; Hui Li; Erhai Liu; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) L.L.C.; Morgan Stanley & Co L.L.C.; China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited; Haitong International Securities Company Limited; KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.; and Needham & Company, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Jackson S. Davis, Esq. COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 586-5800 Facsimile: (212) 586-5095 E-mail: jdavis@ctswlaw.com - and - Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3732 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com The Defendants are represented by: Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3961 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com - and - Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Leslie Alan Blau, Esq. BLAU & MALMFELDT 566 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 443-1600 Facsimile: (312) 443-1665 E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com - and - Steven Bennett Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - Gerald Harlan Silk, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1282 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com - and - David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (LI) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 1303 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com - and - Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com - and - Laurence Jesse Hasson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: lhasson@bernlieb.com - and - Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Peter G. Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 Facsimile: (212) 201-2858 E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Christopher Joseph Keller, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Flr. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 907-0853 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005-1108 Telephone: (212) 907-0650 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com MANKIN LAW GROUP: Brockman Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Acts ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMBERLY T. BROCKMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MANKIN LAW GROUP, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00893 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for the benefit of Florida consumers who have been the subject of debt collection efforts by the Defendant. The case centers on Defendant's failure to effectively provide the disclosures required by the law in its initial written communications to Florida consumers, or within five days thereafter. The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than Defendant, which arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes—namely, assessments due to a community association. According to the complaint, at the time Defendant attempted to collect the Debt from Plaintiff, the Debt was in default, or Defendant treated the Debt as if it were in default from the time that Defendant acquired it for collection. The Defendant uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or to regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another. Mankin Law Group, P.A. is a law firm with principal offices in Pinellas County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com MARATHON PETROLEUM: Morrison et al Seek Non-Prorated Bonuses ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL J. MORRISON and DANA HARVEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, ANDEAVOR LLC, and MAHI LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00480 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for their alleged breach of contract. Plaintiffs were employees of Andeavor. Morrison served as the Senior Vice President for Marketing for over 2 years, whereas Harvey served as Director of Business Insurance for over 15 years. According to the complaint, after an S-4 Registration Statement was filed by Marathon with SEC on July 20, 2018 following its merger with Andeavor, Marathon provided Plaintiffs with 2018 Incentive Compensation Statements on Marathon letterhead which clearly stated that Plaintiffs would receive non-prorated 2018 bonuses. Marathon has agreed to pay full non-prorated 2018 Incentive Compensation Program (ICP) bonuses to certain eligible employees to incentivize them to work tirelessly through the merger's closing and toward the combined company's long-term goals. However, Plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated without cause, Morrison on October 3, 2018 and Harvey on October 12, 2018. The complaint asserts that Marathon breached its agreements with Plaintiffs by refusing to pay them their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses despite Plaintiffs repeated demand to Marathon to fulfill its promise. Mahi LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marathon. Andeavor LLC operates as petroleum refining company. Marathon Petroleum Company LP provides oil refining, marketing, and pipeline transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephanie A. Rzepka, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 405 Main Street, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 281-657-0730 Fax: 281-657-0739 Email: stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com - and – Scott J. Stitt, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 175 South Third St., Suite 520 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: 614-358-9304 Fax: 614-358-9712 Email: scott.stitt@tuckerellis.com - and – Chelsea M. Croy Smith, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Ave., Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-696-5756 Fax: 216-592-5009 Email: Chelsea.croy@tuckerellis.com MDL 2244: Vroman v. DJD Medical Case Moved to N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, VROMAN v. DJD MEDICAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-12314, from District of Massachusetts to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James E. Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts action (Vroman) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring her action to MDL No. 2244. DePuy defendants oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions as to alleged injuries from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants. Plaintiff in Vroman claims that he suffered injuries related to the implantation of a DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implant, which he alleges caused pain, high blood chromium and cobalt levels, and ultimately required revision surgery. Vroman thus falls within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate because federal jurisdiction is lacking over his action. The Panel consistently has held that the pendency of jurisdictional objections does not warrant vacatur. Plaintiff can present his motion for remand to the transferee judge. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/xRprcs MDL 2591: Heartland Corn v. Syngenta Seeds Moved to Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL No. 2591, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, HEARTLAND CORN PRODUCTS v. SYNGENTA SEEDS, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-3060, from the District of Minnesota to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable John W. Lungstrum for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Syngenta defendants move to transfer under Section 1407(c) the District of Minnesota action (Heartland Corn) to the District of Kansas for inclusion in MDL No. 2591. Plaintiff opposes transfer. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2591, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the District of Kansas was the appropriate transferee forum for actions sharing allegations regarding Syngenta's decision to commercialize the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the absence of Chinese approval to import corn with that trait. This action falls within the MDL's ambit because it involves alleged injuries arising from Syngenta's commercialization of MIR162 corn. In opposing transfer, plaintiff, an ethanol producer, argues that the MDL is significantly advanced and that transfer would not serve Section 1407's purposes. Plaintiff's arguments are not persuasive. This MDL is undoubtedly nearing its conclusion after a class settlement was finalized in December 2018. Nevertheless, the factual overlap of Heartland with the MDL is extensive, which is not surprising considering that plaintiff opted out of that settlement. The Panel routinely transfers opt-out actions to the MDL in which a class has been certified, and opting out of an MDL settlement is not a valid reason to vacate transfer of otherwise factually-related actions. Judge Huvelle sees no reason to deviate from this practice here. Litigation of the three remaining cases in the MDL remains ongoing – the claims of exporter Trans Coastal are set for trial in October 2020, exporter Delong is set for a February 2021 trial, and no schedule has issued yet in the third action. Because the MDL is substantially advanced, the transferee judge may determine, based on his independent review of the record, that there are few efficiencies to including Heartland in the remaining MDL schedule. If he finds at any point that Heartland's continued inclusion in the MDL does not further Section 1407's purposes, Judge Huvelle encourages him to suggest a Section 1407 remand of the action to the District of Minnesota, which can be accomplished with a minimum of delay. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/t8Ddyd MDL 2606: Handley v. Daiichi Sankyo Moved to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2606, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, HANDLEY, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-00067, from the Western District of Oklahoma to the District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Daiichi Sankyo US Holdings, Inc., move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the Western District of Oklahoma action (Handley) to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2606. The Handley plaintiffs oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the Handley action involves common questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2606, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL "share factual issues arising from allegations that taking Benicar, Benicar HCT, or Azor may cause serious gastrointestinal injury." A review of the 90+ page "Class Action Petition" filed in Handley leaves no doubt that the action shares multiple factual issues with the previously-centralized actions. In opposition to transfer, the Handley plaintiffs argue that the MDL is essentially over. This argument is unavailing. Although the litigation is undeniably nearing its end, more than a dozen actions remain pending. Transfer will inure to the Handley plaintiffs' benefit, as it will place their action before a judge uniquely familiar with claims involving the subject drugs. Transfer also should facilitate plaintiffs' access to the enormous amount of discovery taken in the MDL, as well as avoid the possibility of unnecessarily duplicative and burdensome discovery and other pretrial proceedings taking place in the Western District of Oklahoma court. The Handley plaintiffs' suggestion that transfer somehow will infringe on their due process rights also is not well taken. Section 1407 transfer does not alter, much less diminish, the character of a transferred action, or impinge on a plaintiff's ability to fully and fairly litigate his or her claims. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/qlQymn MDL 2627: Chaudhary v. Lumber Liquidator Moved to E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2627, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, CHAUDHARY, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATOR, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-5812, from the Eastern District of New York to the Eastern District of Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of New York action (Chaudhary) move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring their action to MDL No. 2627. Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc., opposes the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2627, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons discussed in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Eastern District of Virginia was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring by defendant Lumber Liquidators. Plaintiffs alleged that their laminate flooring emits illegal and unsafe levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, despite being marketed as compliant with regulations of the California Air Resources Board and other applicable regulations. Plaintiffs in Chaudhary bring claims concerning alleged injuries arising from the installation of Lumber Liquidators Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring, which plaintiffs allege emitted excessive levels of benzene and formaldehyde. This action clearly falls within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiffs oppose transfer, arguing that transfer will cause them inconvenience and hardship, particularly because travel to the transferee court will be costly. These arguments do not weigh heavily against transfer. In deciding issues of Section 1407 transfer, the Panel looks to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation as a whole. The transferee court has presided over several personal injury cases and is deeply familiar with this litigation, which is nearing conclusion. Plaintiffs are unlikely to endure the personal inconvenience of traveling to the transferee district, "since Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions or otherwise." A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/3S3gmy MDL 2734: Estelle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Moved to N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2734, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, ESTELLE v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:20-00354, from the District of Minnesota to the Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Estelle action, who is proceeding pro se, moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Estelle to the Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2734. Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., oppose the motion. In opposing transfer, plaintiff argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction over Estelle is lacking and, therefore, transfer to the MDL is not warranted. Such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his remand arguments to the transferee judge. Plaintiff also contends that his action shares insufficient common questions of fact with the actions in MDL No. 2734 to warrant transfer. This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff alleges that he developed compulsive behaviors -- including compulsive gambling, shopping, eating, and hypersexuality -- after being prescribed Abilify and that these behaviors ceased when he stopped taking Abilify. This is precisely the type of allegation at issue in MDL No. 2734. Plaintiff's convenience and efficiency argument is based on his flawed assertion that Estelle does not share common questions of fact with the actions in MDL No. 2734. Therefore, this argument likewise fails. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle finds that Estelle involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2734, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the Northern District of Florida was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that Abilify (aripiprazole), an atypical anti-psychotic medication commonly prescribed to treat a variety of mental disorders, can cause impulse control problems in users. Like the actions in the MDL, Estelle will involve factual questions relating to whether Abilify was defectively designed or manufactured, whether defendants knew or should have known of the alleged propensity of Abilify to cause compulsive gambling and other impulsive behaviors in users, and whether defendants provided adequate instructions and warnings with this product. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/NTZTG2 MDL 2738: Weaver, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2738, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, WEAVER, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00261 from the Northern District of Georgia to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Weaver action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Weaver to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738. Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and PTI Royston, LLC, oppose the motion. In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over Weaver is lacking, and that plaintiffs' pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Judge Huvelle is not persuaded that plaintiffs' jurisdictional objections should be treated differently because remand purportedly is compelled under controlling case law. The Panel regularly orders transfer of actions over similar objections, consistent with the well-established principle that the Panel lacks the authority under Section 1407 to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or merits of a case. Likewise, plaintiffs' argument that Johnson & Johnson has engaged in a pattern of frivolous removals does not support vacating the conditional transfer order. Not only does plaintiffs' argument require that the Panel judges the merit of defendants' removals, but the court best placed to recognize and address any pattern of frivolous removals is the transferee court. Finally, plaintiffs' argument that they will be prejudiced by transfer is unconvincing. Transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience or delay. Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee judge. Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). Weaver shares multiple questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/JRWfSY MDL 2804: 20 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2804, Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 20 actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in 20 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL No. 2804. Various defendants1 oppose the motions. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Proctor finds these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate medications into states, cities, and towns across the country. Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, all share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. These actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiffs oppose transfer and principally argue that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases. Several plaintiffs also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the progress of their actions. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/rsbAhr MDL 2833: Court Denies Motion to Transfer 2 Suits vs. Devos, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: FEDLOAN STUDENTLOAN SERVICING LITIGATION, MDL No. 2833, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and executive committee members' motion to transfer two actions styled, WEINGARTEN, ET AL. v. DEVOS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19 02056 (District of District of Columbia) and CHRISTENSEN, ET AL. v. DEVOS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19 00509 (District of Utah), to MDL No. 2833. Co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and executive committee members in MDL No. 2833 move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the actions listed on Schedule A (District of District of Columbia Weingarten and District of Utah Christensen) to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 2833. All parties in Weingarten filed a joint opposition to transfer of that action. Defendants in Christensen filed a joint opposition to transfer of that action. Defendant the Utah Higher Education Assistance Agency alternatively requests that the Panel separate and remand the claims in Christensen against it. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, which was a defendant in Christensen, but was dismissed voluntarily on February 14, 2020, responds that because it was dismissed, it should not be subject to transfer to the MDL. The Christensen plaintiffs did not respond to the motion to transfer. When the Panel granted centralization in MDL No. 2833, the subject cases involved allegations that common defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) harmed participants in Alternative Loan Repayment Programs by extending the duration of borrowers' student loans through various means and/or converting grants to interest bearing loans. The Panel included in the MDL one action (Ford) that, after the claims against PHEAA had been dismissed, named only Secretary DeVos and the Department of Education as defendants, because the claims against them "rel[ied] upon PHEAA's alleged misconduct and, therefore, it appear[ed] that Ford w[ould] involve overlapping discovery with the remaining actions." Plaintiffs in Ford alleged that the government defendants breached the terms of Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant agreements by imposing hyper-technical reporting criteria for reporting plaintiffs' compliance with the terms of the grants, and by converting the grants to loans when plaintiffs were unable to comply. After centralization, the MDL plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that significantly expands the allegations and claims against the government defendants. In that amended pleading, plaintiffs allege that PHEAA fails to properly service Title IV loan programs, including the TEACH grant program; Income Driven Repayment (IDR) programs, which set borrowers' monthly student loan payments based on income and family size; and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which provides enrolled borrowers who work in public service jobs with loan forgiveness after 120 qualified payments. Plaintiffs allege the government defendants: (1) penalize borrowers for technical mistakes on forms not approved by OMB; (2) fail to submit the required report on the TEACH grant program to the authorizing committees; (3) fail to adequately remedy TEACH grants improperly converted to loans; (4) fail to implement a common policies and procedures manual for the Direct Loan program; (5) arbitrarily withdrew the only existing policy memorandum providing guidance to Direct Loan servicers; (6) fail to use the enforcement tools available to hold PHEAA accountable for its failures to borrowers; (7) fail to maintain records transferred from prior loan servicers; (8) fail to comply with the Congressional mandate when administering the Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) program; and (9) fail to adhere to federal internal control standards. In Weingarten, an association and several individual plaintiffs allege that the Department of Education fails to evaluate PSLF applications in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. Specifically, they allege that the Department of Education fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when considering PSLF applications or provide an adequate explanation for its decisions, and it fails to implement a process that provides borrowers with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on issues affecting their eligibility for PSLF. In Christensen, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class, in addition to advancing similar claims as to the Department of Education, also bring claims against PHEAA and two additional loan servicer groups.3 Plaintiffs claim these loan servicers gave plaintiffs misleading information or omitted material information about the PSLF program, causing plaintiffs and putative class members to believe they were making qualifying PSLF payments, when in fact they were not. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle is not persuaded that Section 1407 transfer of these actions to MDL No. 2833 would benefit either the actions or the MDL. The MDL actions involve allegations regarding the PSLF program, IDR plans, and the TEACH grant program. Plaintiffs' allegations in Weingarten and Christensen, by contrast, involve only the PSLF program. At the same time, Christensen also brings claims against two loan servicer groups that are not defendants in the MDL. And PHEAA, the common defendant in the initially centralized actions, is not the focus of either Weingarten or Christensen. In fact, Weingarten does not name PHEAA as a defendant. The Panel created this MDL to adjudicate claims concerning alleged misconduct by PHEAA regarding its servicing of TEACH grants, IDR plans, and the PSLF program. There will be some factual overlap between the MDL actions, and each of Weingarten and Christensen. But the Panel is not persuaded that inclusion of these two actions that target different defendants and involve only one loan program would promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Christensen complaint names PHEAA as one of several loan servicer defendants that allegedly engaged in misconduct, and a considerable focus of the complaint is the Department of Education's alleged failures. Transfer of Christensen thus could lead to an expansion of MDL No. 2833 to include numerous additional cases asserting similar claims against other loan servicers. Including these new parties and allegations would greatly expand the scope of pretrial proceedings in the MDL. The Panel does not wish to unnecessarily complicate the transferee judge's ability to efficiently manage this litigation, which was centralized almost two years ago. Notably, the parties who would be most affected by the burden of any overlap in discovery among these two actions and the MDL are defendants, and they oppose transfer. As the allegations common to Christensen, as well as Weingarten, and the MDL are limited, Judge Huvelle finds alternatives are available to the parties and the courts to informally coordinate pretrial proceedings in order to avoid duplicative proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/yq0GXt MDL 2873: Court Denies DuPont's Bid to Transfer 8 Suits vs. 3M Co. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the DuPont Defendants' motion to transfer eight actions to MDL No. 2873. Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours Company, LLC (collectively, DuPont) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the eight Eastern District of New York actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Plaintiffs in those actions oppose the motion. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The complaints in the eight New York actions on the motion to transfer contain no mention of AFFFs. Instead, plaintiffs -- all of which are water authorities -- assert claims against DuPont, 3M Company, and Dyneon LLC1 for the alleged contamination of plaintiffs' drinking water supplies with PFOS and/or PFOA. In support of its motion to transfer, DuPont argues that, regardless of how plaintiffs' claims are constructed, the New York actions are AFFF actions. Specifically, DuPont argues that plaintiffs' claims arise out of the alleged discharge of PFOA and/or PFOS into the recharge area2for Long Island's aquifer system. This aquifer system is already the subject of an action in the MDL, which alleges that AFFF use contributed to the contamination of the aquifer. DuPont contends that plaintiffs' claims are nearly identical with those in Suffolk County, except that plaintiffs in the New York actions omit any mention of AFFFs. DuPont also points to various news and other reports of aviation and commercial accidents on Long Island in which AFFFs may have been used to extinguish fires. DuPont's arguments are not persuasive. The New York actions do not raise AFFF claims. Indeed, they contain no mention of AFFFs. Instead, these complaints focus on DuPont's and 3M's manufacture, marketing, and sale of PFOA and PFOS. Some of this PFOA or PFOS may have been incorporated into AFFF products that contributed to the contamination of plaintiffs' groundwater supplies, but at this point the extent of AFFF involvement in these actions is speculative. Additionally, the Panel's past practice in this docket weighs against transferring these New York actions to MDL No. 2873. The Panel has transferred several actions in which plaintiffs allege multiple sources of PFOS and PFOA contamination, including from the use of AFFFs. The Panel has not, though, transferred to the MDL actions that do not contain any allegations or claims relating to AFFF use. Indeed, the Panel recently denied transfer of an action, Middlesex Water Company, in which the claims were "directed at 3M and its manufacture, marketing, and sales of PFOS and PFOA, not its manufacture of AFFF products." In that order, the Panel expressed its concern that broadening the scope of MDL No. 2873 beyond AFFFs could render the litigation unwieldy: "[W]e have no desire to unnecessarily complicate the transferee judge's task inefficiently managing this litigation, which already involves a wide range of claims and parties. Given our continued concern about the manageability of this litigation, a party seeking transfer of an action that does not on its face raise AFFF claims bears a significant burden to persuade us that transfer is appropriate and will not undermine the efficient progress of the AFFF MDL." Like Middlesex Water Company, the New York complaints do not on their face raise AFFF claims, and defendants have not carried their "significant burden" to persuade Judge Huvelle that transfer of these non-AFFF actions is appropriate. Defendants' prediction that discovery in these actions relating to AFFFs will substantially overlap with discovery conducted in the MDL is conjecture. DuPont has not yet responded to plaintiffs' complaints. To the extent there is any potential for duplicative discovery, such overlap is best minimized through coordination between the parties and the involved courts. And, should these New York actions evolve into AFFF cases, the parties or the court at that time can re-notice them as potential tag-alongs in MDL No. 2873. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/8OUKee MDL 2873: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order on Kovach v USA ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-23" as it relates to the action styled, KOVACH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:19-07065 (Southern District of New York). Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Kovach action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Kovach to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. The United States defendants take no position on the motion. The other defendants named in Kovach did not respond to the motion and therefore are deemed to have acquiesced to the motion. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle finds that Kovach shares questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2873, but that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Plaintiff in Kovach asserts environmental claims stemming from an alleged incident of intentional dumping of AFFFs at Stewart Air National Guard Base in August 1990. Kovach thus will share certain factual questions with the other actions centralized in MDL No. 2873. Even so, the differences between Kovach and the actions in the MDL are significant. Plaintiff's allegations pertain to a decades-old intentional dumping incident that does not appear to have been raised in the MDL. His claims regarding this incident are unique, as plaintiff alleges that he witnessed the dumping and suffered retaliation because he reported it to a state environmental regulator. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, also seeks unique relief, including retroactive military promotion and retirement benefits. Kovach, therefore, is likely to present idiosyncratic case management issues that can be handled more efficiently outside the MDL. Significantly, no party asks that Kovach be litigated as part of MDL No. 2873. Transfer of Kovach to MDL No. 2873 thus is not warranted. Should the need arise, Judge Huvelle encourages the parties to employ available alternatives to transfer to minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. And, if Kovach evolves into a more typical AFFF action in which the common discovery and motion practice would be more efficiently and conveniently litigated within MDL No. 2873, the parties may again notice Kovach as a potential tag-along action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/lkrJEN MDL 2875: Bokhari v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Moved to New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2875, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring BOKHARI v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-08045 from the Northern District of California to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Northern District of California action (Bokhari) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order conditionally transferring Bokhari to MDL No. 2875. Defendants Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Torrent Pharma, Inc., Hetero Labs Ltd., Hetero USA, Inc., Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Camber), and CVS Pharmacy Inc. oppose the motion and support transfer. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2875, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Like many of the already-centralized actions, plaintiff alleges that she purchased generic losartan that contained carcinogenic nitrosamines and that she suffered injury and damages as a result. In opposing transfer, plaintiff principally argues that Bokhari is unique because it involves losartan rather than valsartan. But the Panel recently expanded the scope of MDL No. 2875 to include losartan actions, explaining that "valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan actions will present common factual questions as to the cause of the nitrosamine impurities and, in particular, alleged common defects in the manufacturing process; when defendants knew or should have known of the impurities; and whether the amounts of nitrosamines in the medications presented a risk of cancer or other injuries." Plaintiff argues that this decision was in error because losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan are distinct drugs with different factual backgrounds, and including them all in a single MDL is inefficient. The Panel previously considered these arguments and rejected them. It also stated the parties can "raise their concerns about efficiency with the transferee court and propose measures to address these issues." Plaintiff's other objections to transfer are unconvincing. She argues that her California law claims and legal theories do not overlap with the actions in the MDL. The Panel often has held that the involvement of allegedly unique state laws is no impediment to transfer, explaining that "the presence of . . . differing legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise from a common factual core." Plaintiff additionally argues that her individual personal injury action is not aligned with the class actions in the MDL. But MDL No. 2875 includes numerous personal injury actions as well as class actions. The Panel routinely includes individual and class actions in a single MDL. Plaintiff then asserts that she will not be represented adequately in the MDL, as plaintiffs' lead counsel and court-appointed attorney committees control discovery. The Panel finds plaintiff's concerns about inadequate representation speculative. Moreover, the Panel previously has transferred actions over a plaintiff's objections to court-appointed lead counsel, noting that arguments as to any alleged deficiencies in the MDL leadership are properly directed to the transferee court. Lastly, she argues that transfer will be inconvenient and unjust, due to the travel burden, increased costs, anticipated delays in discovery, and personal difficulties. The Panel is sympathetic to plaintiff's concerns, but they do not justify denial of transfer. The Panel looks to "the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of the parties to a single action." A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/Det1fA MDL 2875: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for "Garrison" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2875, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional transfer order designated "CTO-16" as it relates to the action styled, GARRISON v. CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-12536. Defendant Legacy Pharmaceutical Packaging, LLC, moves to stay the order conditionally transferring the Garrison action to MDL No. 2875 until the transferor court rules on its pending motion to dismiss. Defendants Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Camber) and Walmart, Inc., oppose the motion and support transfer. Plaintiff Garrison, who is proceeding pro se, did not respond to the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle concludes that inclusion of Garrison in MDL No. 2875 at this time would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation at this time. Without doubt, this action shares factual questions with the actions in the MDL. Like many of the already-centralized actions, plaintiff alleges that he purchased generic losartan that contained carcinogenic nitrosamines and that he suffered injury and damages as a result. But after the Panel briefing closed, the magistrate judge in Garrison recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further proceedings on this recommendation can take place more efficiently in the Eastern District of Michigan, which has invested substantial time in reaching the recommended disposition and has a schedule in place for completing those proceedings. If any claims remain pending after those proceedings are done, the parties or the court can re-notice Garrison as a potential tag-along action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/JVnvzC MDL 2885: Conditional Transfer Order for Graves v. 3M Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUGPRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-46" with respect to the action styled, GRAVES v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-03094 (District of Minnesota). Plaintiff in the Graves action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2885. Defendants 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC, oppose the motion to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, we will grant the motion to vacate. The actions in MDL No. 2885 arise out of allegations that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Like many plaintiffs in MDL No. 2885, the Graves plaintiff alleges that he purchased Combat Arms earplugs and, because defendants failed to warn him of the proper insertion technique, he now suffers from hearing loss and tinnitus. Graves, therefore, shares factual questions with the MDL No. 2885 cases. But the District of Minnesota granted plaintiff's motion to remand to state court on March 23, 2020, and defendants have appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit. Transferring Graves to the MDL at this time would undermine efficiency by complicating its procedural posture. If Graves remains in federal court, the parties should renotify the Panel of the action’s status as a potential tag-along action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/nPzp3M MDL 2913: Eisenhauer, Lewis Actions Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two actions to the Northern District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The two actions are styled, LEWIS v. JUUL LABS, INC., C.A. No. 1:19-07787 (Northern District of Illinois) and EISENHAUER v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00343 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania). Plaintiffs in two actions (Eisenhauer and Lewis) separately move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2913. Defendant JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI) opposes the motions to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the Eisenhauer and Lewis actions involve common questions of fact with actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction." The Eisenhauer and Lewis actions implicate many of those same questions. In opposing transfer, the Eisenhauer plaintiff cites the pendency of his motion for remand to state court, and argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction over his action is lacking. The Panel consistently has held, however, that jurisdictional objections are not an impediment to transfer. The Lewis plaintiffs' arguments against transfer of their action also are unpersuasive. Essentially, the Lewis plaintiffs argue that their action should not be transferred because it is a second-hand smoke case – i.e., it is brought on behalf of a putative Illinois class of non-users of JUUL products who allegedly have been injured by the discharge from those products. But a review of the Lewis complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, the alleged risks posed by use of those products, and JLI's knowledge of those risks. Section 1407 transfer does "not require a complete identity of parties." Moreover, the MDL already includes actions brought by municipalities and school districts alleging indirect harm caused by the use of JUUL products. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/b2QzXT MDL 2913: Lindstrom Suit Moved to Northern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, LINDSTROM v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00057, from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Axiocore Corporation moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the Lindstrom action to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2913. In the alternative, Axiocore asks that the Panel separate and remand the claims against it to the transferor court. Separately, defendant Evolv, LLC, moves to vacate, in part, the order as to Lindstrom, and for separation and remand of the claims against defendants other than JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI), Pax Labs, Inc., and Altria Group, Inc. JLI opposes the motions, and Pax Labs and Altria Group join in JLI's response. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the Lindstrom action involves common questions of fact with actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction." The Lindstrom action implicates those same questions. Axiocore's and Evolv's arguments against transfer (and for separation and remand of the claims against them) largely were addressed in the recent Panel order transferring the Northern District of Alabama May action to the MDL, over the objections of defendant Schwartz E-Liquid LLC. Similar to Axiocore and Evolv here, Schwartz was one of several non-JLI vaping entities sued in May. In ordering transfer of May, the Panel stated: "The presence of additional defendants does not bar transfer, because 'transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of parties.'" The Panel noted that other e-cigarette companies already were defendants in the MDL, and that, in any event, the "seemingly indivisible nature" of the May plaintiff's claims rendered a partial transfer "impracticable." The Panel stated that the transferee judge had "the discretion to employ separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial techniques to address any issues specific to the non-JLI defendants, including confidentiality concerns such as those raised by Schwartz." Id. Axiocore's and Evolv's attempts to distinguish the Panel's decision in May fall short. For its part, Axiocore argues that the Lindstrom plaintiff has not alleged actual use of a JUUL product, that Axiocore's products are not used in JUUL products, that Axiocore has no relationship with JLI, and that one of plaintiff's alleged injuries – lipoid pneumonia – is a condition associated with use of illicit THC products. The first argument goes to the merits of plaintiff's claims, and the others fail to recognize that, as in May, the Lindstrom plaintiff alleges seemingly indivisible injuries (including addiction, bronchitis, and possible permanent lung damage) as a result of using defendants' products. Similarly, Evolv's contention that plaintiff's claims against Evolv and Axiocore are easily separated from her JUUL-related claims, because they fall into two distinct timeframes, rests on an untenable reading of the Lindstrom complaint. Contrary to Evolv's assertion, the complaint is not readily divisible into two time periods. Evolv's argument that it would be inconvenienced by transfer also fails, because the Panel considers the convenience of the parties and witnesses as a whole in deciding the issue of transfer. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/qpFZuI MDL 2929: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 5 Suits vs Quincy Bioscience ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PREVAGEN PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 2929, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Quincy Defendants' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of five actions into the Southern District of New York. Defendants Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Prevagen, Inc., Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC, Mark Underwood, and Michael Beaman (collectively Quincy Defendants) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of New York. The litigation consists of three actions in the Southern District of New York, one action in the Southern District of Florida, and one action in the Western District of Texas. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary. Plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York Karathanos and Vanderwerff actions support centralization in the Southern District of New York, but only if the MDL also includes a related action in that district brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General for the State of New York (FTC/NYAG). Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Spath action also supports centralization in the Southern District of New York, and prefers including the FTC/NYAG action in the MDL, but does not condition her support on its inclusion. Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Florida Collins and Western District of Texas Engert actions oppose centralization. The Collins plaintiffs further argue that if centralization is ordered over their objections, the Panel should exclude Collins from the MDL, based on the action's advanced procedural posture. This litigation, which involves allegations that defendants falsely and deceptively marketed Prevagen, a dietary supplement, as improving memory and providing other cognitive benefits, is before the Panel for a second time. At the Panel's May 2017 hearing session, the judge denied these same defendants' motion for centralization of four actions pending in four districts. At that time, the subject actions included the FTC/NYAG action, the Karathanos and Vanderwerff actions (which were then pending in the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey, respectively), and an action in the Northern District of California (Racies). In the Panel's order denying centralization, the judge cited the following grounds for the denial: (1) there were only four actions and no tag-alongs, and the Karathanos and Vanderwerff plaintiffs shared counsel; (2) the Racies action was in an advanced procedural posture – it had been pending for over two years and "significant discovery" had taken place; and (3) the common factual issues did not seem unusually complex, given that the Prevagen website listed only a single clinical trial of the supplement's efficacy (the Madison Memory Study), and the report describing that study and its results was only ten pages long. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. As the Panel previously has stated, it will grant a follow-up motion for centralization "only rarely," and upon a showing of "a significant change in circumstances." The Judge finds no such change here. There are only five actions in three districts, and no potential tag-along actions. The Karathanos and Vanderwerff plaintiffs continue to share counsel (and appear to be coordinating with the Spath plaintiff's counsel). With the exception of Western District of Texas Engert, most actions are in a fairly advanced procedural posture. For example, fact discovery in Southern District of Florida Collins is set to close on April 10, 2020, and the fact discovery cut-off in FTC/NYAG(which the Quincy Defendants also state they wish to follow with respect to at least Karathanos, Vanderwerff, and Spath) recently was extended from April 30, 2020, to July 31, 2020. And the common factual issues do not appear to have grown significantly -- in either number or complexity– since the denial of centralization in Prevagen I (for example, the Madison Memory Study remains the only clinical study of Prevagen's effectiveness). Given these circumstances, the Panel continues to believe that alternatives to centralization are practicable, and that formal centralization under Section 1407 is not necessary. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/VFAaTf MDL 2930: Novartis Pharmaceuticals' Patent Suits Moved to Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: ENTRESTO (SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN) PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2930, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four lawsuits of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation pending in two districts to the District of Delaware and, with the consent of that court assigned them to the Honorable Leonard P. Stark for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and patentholder Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Novartis) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of Delaware. This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts. The Panel has been notified of one related action in the District of Delaware. All responding defendants support, or do not oppose, the motion for centralization. Novartis filed these actions after the various generic drug manufacturer defendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make and sell generic versions of Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan), a prescription drug used in the treatment of heart failure. The actions on the motion are a series ofHatch-Waxman3 patent infringement lawsuits, in which Novartis alleges that each of the defendants has infringed two or more of the patents covering Entresto by filing ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Entresto in the United States prior to expiration of the patents. On the basis of the papers filed, Judge Huvelle finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions involve substantially similar claims that defendants infringed two or more of the Entresto patents. Centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings (particularly with respect to claim construction and issues of patent validity), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The Panel recently centralized similar litigations, citing "the complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in litigation involving the potential entry of generic drugs into the market." The Panel is persuaded that centralization of these cases similarly will lead to their efficient resolution. Judge Huvelle selects the District of Delaware as the transferee district for these actions. All but one of the five related actions are pending in this district. The Judge is confident that the Honorable Leonard P. Stark, who is well-versed in complex patent litigation, will steer this matter on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/JBnvTp MDL 2931: 14 Delta Dental Antitrust Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DELTA DENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2931, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 14 actions pending in three districts to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in 11 actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation consists of fourteen actions pending in three districts. Plaintiffs in all of the actions allege that Delta Dental insurance plans aggregated unlawful monopsony power in the market for dental insurance in the United States through their artificial territorial division of the market among the Delta Dental insurers. In addition to the actions on the motion, the parties have notified the Panel of ten related actions pending in eight districts. All responding parties either support or do not oppose centralization. The parties, however, disagree as to the transferee district. In addition to movants, plaintiff in one potential tag-along action and the Delta Dental defendants support centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the two non-Illinois actions on the motion, as well as plaintiffs in five potential tag-along actions, suggest centralization in the District of Minnesota. All but one of these plaintiffs alternatively suggest the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff in another potential tag-along action proposes centralization in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff American Dental Association takes no position on the transferee district. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that the Delta Dental defendants have divided and allocated among themselves dental insurance markets throughout the nation to eliminate competition. Plaintiffs allege that defendants abused their monopsony power to:(1) restrict competition between the Delta Dental insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand; (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental insurers to dentists and dental practices who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans; and/or (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental insurers when operating under non-Delta Dental brands. Plaintiffs uniformly contend that the alleged conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as various related state laws. The actions also are brought on behalf of overlapping putative nationwide and state classes. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to class certification); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Half of the related actions (including the potential tag-along actions) are pending in this district. Several important defendants are located in or near the Northern District of Illinois, including Delta Dental Plans Association -- the association through which defendants allegedly allocated the dental insurance markets among the Delta Dental member insurers. Thus, relevant evidence and witnesses likely will be located in the district. Furthermore, both plaintiffs and defendants support centralization in the Northern District of Illinois, which is a geographically central and accessible forum for this nationwide litigation. And, centralization before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo allows the Panel to assign this litigation to an able jurist with significant MDL experience. Judge Huvelle is confident that Judge Bucklo will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/7ZHqf6 MDL 2932: Court Denies Bid to Move 8 Wells Fargo Mortgage Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE MODIFICATION LITIGATION, MDL No. 2932, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of eight actions pending in seven districts into the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Washington. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Washington action move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Washington. The motion encompasses eight actions pending in seven districts. Plaintiff in the Western District of Pennsylvania action joins the motion. Plaintiffs in two actions pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Southern District of Ohio suggest centralization in the Southern District of Ohio and, in their reply, movants state they do not oppose centralization in that district. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Hernandez action oppose centralization or, alternatively, suggest exclusion of Hernandez from pretrial proceedings. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. opposes centralization or, alternatively, suggests centralization in the Southern District of Iowa. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Huvelle will deny the motion. These actions involve common questions of fact concerning an alleged error in mortgage modification software that Wells Fargo used to determine borrower eligibility for loan modifications. The question of centralization presents a close call, but on balance, the Judge is not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization is necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation at this time. This litigation involves ten actions pending in nine districts, and five assert at least somewhat overlapping classes of borrowers. The Northern District of California Hernandez action is far more advanced than any other, with discovery largely complete, a nationwide class certified, a motion for partial summary judgment pending, and until recently, a trial on the horizon. After the Panel's hearing session, on March 27, 2020, the Hernandez parties informed the Northern District of California that they had reached a proposed settlement for the certified class, and they intend to move for preliminary approval in less than a week. Centralization at this time could delay a class settlement in the most advanced action in this litigation and result in little or no benefit to the class members and other parties. Four of the other actions before the Panel are brought on behalf of putative classes of borrowers affected by the alleged software error. While the class certified in Hernandez does not completely overlap with these other putative classes, the proposed class settlement may resolve at least some claims in this litigation if plaintiffs choose to participate in the settlement. The Panel, therefore, cannot speculate what claims would remain after completion of a class settlement. Furthermore, there are alternatives to centralization available to minimize any overlap in pretrial proceedings, including informal cooperation and coordination of all actions, or other cooperative arrangements, such as a stay of the other cases while the settlement in Hernandez proceeds. Wells Fargo and plaintiffs in six actions each are represented by common counsel, suggesting that informal coordination is feasible. Notably, discovery from the Hernandez action can be made available to plaintiffs in the other actions. If alternatives to Section 1407 centralization prove to be unsuccessful, it may be that a more persuasive case for centralization could be made. But on the facts now before the Panel, the Judge is not persuaded that the possible benefits of centralization outweigh its potential to interfere with the resolution of some claims in this litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/EfNB8I MDL 2933: 6 FCRA Suits Transferred to Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 2933, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring six actions to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable J.P. Boulee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there. Defendants TransUnion LLC and TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (TURSS) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation, in the Northern District of Georgia. This litigation consists of six actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiffs in all actions oppose centralization. If centralization is ordered, they argue for the Eastern District of Virginia or the Central District of California as the transferee district. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions involve common factual issues arising from six similar putative nationwide class actions alleging various errors in tenant screening reports. Plaintiffs are prospective tenants who allege that criminal or civil records were misattributed to them due to errors made by defendants. All actions concern TURSS's policies and procedures for obtaining, using and reporting such public records on tenant screening reports. Plaintiffs contend in each action that defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b), by failing to adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information conveyed in the tenant screening reports. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. In opposing centralization, plaintiffs stress certain differences among the actions and the circumstances in which they arose. In particular, plaintiffs contend that the manner in which the errors in each tenant screening report were made differs from plaintiff to plaintiff, with two actions alleging misreporting of civil judgments of eviction and plaintiffs in the remaining four actions alleging inaccurate reporting of criminal convictions (failure to match basic information such as reported age, birth date and full name). Plaintiffs argue that each case can be expected to involve different data sets, and note that they have tailored their class definitions to fit each plaintiff's circumstances such that there is no overlap in the putative classes. But these distinctions and the variations among the class definitions do not appear particularly significant. All actions share factual questions concerning maintenance and operation of the TURSS database and protocols for determining what public record information is included in its tenant screening reports. The propriety of TURSS's exclusion of vendor information as a source in its tenant screening reports also is a question common to at least three of the six actions. Moreover, defendants assert that the information at issue in all actions is stored in the same TURSS databases, so discovery can be expected to overlap to a significant extent. Plaintiffs also assert that voluntary cooperation among the parties would be superior to formal centralization. Although the Panel encourages the parties to cooperate to the extent possible, it concludes that creation of an MDL is warranted in these circumstances. As mentioned, there are six putative nationwide class actions pending in four districts. And defendant's request to transfer the Eastern District of Virginia Francis action to the Northern District of Georgia was denied, which suggests that similar attempts to proceed before a single judge may be unsuccessful. The Panel is persuaded that the Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate transferee district. The district offers a readily accessible and convenient transferee forum. Further, one of the oldest and most advanced actions (Hall) is pending in that district before Judge J.P. Boulee. Centralization before Judge Boulee allows the Panel to assign this litigation to an able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. The Panel is confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/VBCLfe MDL 2933: Lewis v. Transunion Over Credit Reports Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL REID LEWIS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00531 (Filed Feb. 3, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 28, 2020. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01832-JPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee. The case seeks damages and injunctive relief brought against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law The Lewis case is being consolidated with MDL 2933 in re: TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on. March 30, 2020. The actions involve common factual issues arising from six similar putative nationwide class actions alleging various errors in tenant screening reports. The Plaintiffs are prospective tenants who allege that criminal or civil records were misattributed to them due to errors made by defendants. All actions concern TURSS's policies and procedures for obtaining, using and reporting such public records on tenant screening reports. The Plaintiffs contend in each action that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information conveyed in the tenant screening reports. In its March 30, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02933-JPB. The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. The Defendant sells consumer reports generated from its database and furnishes these consumer reports to landlords, who use the reports to make decisions regarding whether to rent to certain consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net MDL 2934: Court Denies Joel Snider's Bid to Centralize 4 Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JOEL SNIDER LITIGATION, MDL No. 2934, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied Plaintiff Joel Snider's motion to centralize four actions pending in two districts. Plaintiff Joel Snider, who is proceeding pro se, moves to centralize this litigation in the Western District of Pennsylvania. This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts. All responding defendants oppose centralization, specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections defendants; federal defendants the United States, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker; mental health provider defendants Karen Kaskie, Dr. Polmueller; Dr. Pushkalai Pillai, Jennifer Herrold, Dr. Martinez and Dr. Mahvesh Sheikh; and the Clinton County, Union County, and Snyder County defendants. On the basis of the papers filed, Judge Huvelle concludes that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although the actions present some factual overlap as to plaintiff's alleged disabilities, the conditions of his confinement at various correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, and the sufficiency of his access to the judicial system, the actions already are proceeding in an orderly manner in the two districts in which they are pending. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden here. Additionally, plaintiff appears to seek centralization for an improper purpose -- that is, to fix a perceived mistake in how he filed his actions and to avoid a court he perceives as "hostile" to his claims. These are not appropriate grounds for centralization under Section 1407. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/viFa7i MDL 2935: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Patent & Contract Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: ALEXSAM, INC. ('608 & '787) PATENT AND CONTRACT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2935, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied common Alexsam, Inc.'s motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of five actions into the Eastern District of Texas. Common plaintiff and patentholder Alexsam, Inc., moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The litigation consists of five actions pending in the Northern District of California, the District of Connecticut, the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Texas, and the District of Utah. Responding defendants Mastercard International Incorporated, Aetna Inc., HealthEquity, Inc. WageWorks, Inc., and Simon Property Group, L.P., oppose centralization. After considering the parties' arguments, the Panel concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions possess a degree of factual commonality: all are related in some manner to one or both of two expired Alexsam patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 7,189,787. Both patents are directed to a multifunction card system capable of serving various types of prepaid cards, such as phone cards, gift cards, medical cards, and loyalty cards. There are, however, significant differences among the actions as well. In each action, Alexsam sues a single unique defendant (e.g., Aetna is the sole defendant in the Connecticut action, and Simon Property Group is the sole defendant in the Texas action). The defendants make different "accused products," and the same patent claims are not at issue in all actions. For example, in the California, Connecticut, and Utah actions, Alexsam alleges that certain medical card products of WageWorks, Aetna, and HealthEquity, respectively, infringe claims 32 and 33 of the '608 patent. In the Texas action, however, Alexsam alleges that different products -- defendant Simon's gift cards -- infringe different claims of the '608 patent (specifically, claims 34, 36, 37, 39, 44, 45, 60, 62, 63, 65, and 66). The'787 patent is at issue only in the New York action. Beyond these differences, the purportedly common issues cited by Alexsam do not, in fact, appear to be shared by all actions. Alexsam asserts that all actions involve "essentially identical issues" concerning a May 2005 agreement in which Alexsam granted MasterCard a license under the '608 and '787 patents. Alexsam describes these issues as including matters with respect to the agreement's scope and whether Mastercard is responsible for certain "Licensed Transactions," as that term is defined in theagreement.3Id. Alexsam further asserts that "perhaps the most important discovery issue" common to the actions is "related to MasterCard's [sic] Agreement and who and what are covered by its terms." In the Texas action, however, Simon, the defendant, has not raised a license defense. According to Simon, the Alexsam-Mastercard agreement cannot truly be an issue in its case because Simon did not have a gift card program with Mastercard until after August 2018, and the '608 patent -- which is the only patent at issue in Simon -- expired on July 10, 2017. Even if the agreement with Mastercard does present some factual issues common to all actions, Alexsam's contention that it requires significant new discovery related to the nearly 15-year-old agreement appears questionable. At the inception of the New York action, in which Alexsam sues Mastercard for breach of the agreement, the then-presiding judge authorized the parties to engage in over eight months of discovery, including depositions, concerning matters relating to the interpretation of the agreement. The lengthy litigation history of the two patents further undermines the case for centralization. According to Alexsam, it previously has litigated 20 cases involving these patents, and obtained eight claim construction rulings. It seems all but certain that during the course of those earlier cases, Alexsam produced the entire universe of documents in its possession relating to the two patents. Doing so again in the presently pending actions is unlikely to pose a significant burden. The depositions of the patents' common inventor, as well as other Alexsam witnesses, can be coordinated. And the eight claim construction rulings are available to the parties and the presiding judges regardless of centralization. At bottom, Alexsam's Section 1407 motion appears to be largely predicated on its dissatisfaction with certain of the magistrate judge's rulings in the New York action, as well as, relatedly, the action's progress. Such dissatisfaction, however, is not a factor in the Section 1407 analysis. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/FHHWKT METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017), according to MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the present. MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Still Defends Atkins Suit over Group Annuity Contracts ------------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. is still facing the putative class action styled, Atkins et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (D. Nev., filed November 18, 2019), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief. Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. MIKE SLAGLE: Amended Bid for Class Classification Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BENSON MOORE v. MIKE SLAGLE, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-242-FDW (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order: 1. dismissing the amended complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2. denying Plaintiff's amended motion for classification of the class, and denying motion for the appointment of Counsel to represent the Class; and 3. instructing Clerk to close this case. The Court said, "the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel. To the extent that the Plaintiff argues that the existence of an unrepresented class is an exceptional circumstance, this argument is rejected because the Plaintiff has failed to establish that he can satisfy Rule 23. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motions will be denied. This action is dismissed as frivolous because it is duplicative of case number 1:20-cv-58 and Plaintiff's pending Motions are denied."[CC] MISSION ROAD: Bid to Certify Collins Collective Action Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as REBECCA COLLINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND OF BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MISSION ROAD MINISTRIES, Case No. 5:19-cv-00713-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information and the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action; and 2. dismissing as moot the Defendant's motion to strike and objections to the plaintiff's evidence supporting the Plaintiff's motion for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information and objections to evidence The Court is unwilling to infer from the statements that Defendant has a pattern or practice of not properly compensating any Service Specialists for paperwork they perform outside their scheduled shifts. The affidavit makes vague, general allegations about what others may have been told or how they may have been affected, but there are not substantial allegations that there is a group of individuals subject to similar improper pay practices. The Court will permit the Plaintiff, however, to refile the motion later with more evidentiary support. The case is a putative collective action seeking overtime compensation arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Mission Road. Mission Road owns and operates vocational training centers, community homes, apartment complexes, and a main campus with on-site housing that assist children and adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. The Plaintiff worked at one such center as a Service Specialist.[CC] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Reyes et al Sue Over Steep Inspection Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, GREGORIA SOBERAL-REYES and PAUL REAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00155 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices and the Fair Debt Collection Practices. Plaintiffs have mortgage loans owned by FNMA that fell into default. According to the complaint, Defendant's mortgage servicing system automatically orders property inspections of the home every 20-30 days after a homeowner defaults on his or her mortgage. Allegedly, the Inspection Vendor, who performs the property inspection, illegally charges consumers far more than $15.00 the actual cost for each property inspection and which Defendant intentionally concealed from consumers to avoid dispute. Consumers, including Plaintiffs, are forced to pay the illegal charges associated with these inspections to avoid foreclosure. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is a debt collector that services defaulted mortgage loans for Fannie Mae (FNMA). [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darren R. Newhart, Esq. J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Tel: (561)692-6013 Fax: (305)574-0132 Emails: darren@cloorg.com DCard@Consumerlaworg.com - and – Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Mark Fistos, Esq. Candace Phillips, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 Southeast 6th St., STE 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954)989-6333 Emails: jshaw@zpllp.com mfistos@zpllp.com cphillips@zpllp.com - and – J. Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERREL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, PC 2201 Arlington Ave. S. Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205)939-0199 Fax: (205)939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, filed the action in 1996. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education of the City School District, Case No. 20-1262, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Anthony Manley is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 20-1263, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff–Appellee Silvia Fernandez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. Corporation Counsel CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Deg Suit Over Unlawful Solicitation Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Deg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NextGen Leads, LLC, d/b/a First Quote Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00818-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., April 21, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking damages 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 ("TCPA") and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The complaint mentions that the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1996, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services, beginning in or around May or June 2019 using automatic telephone dialing system. The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Plaintiff received multiple solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period. The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone during all relevant times. The Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Revocation Class members via their cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and Revocation Class members to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and Revocation Class members had previously paid by having to retrieve or administer messages left by Defendant during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and Revocation Class members. NextGen Leads, LLC, d/b/a First Quote Health is a lead generating company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com – and – Todd Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com NORTHLAND GROUP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Maher FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Northland Group Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's decision issued in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Maher v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-02957, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit originally filed in state court, arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Ms. Maher, held a Macy's credit card, issued by Department Stores National Bank ("DNSB"), a subsidiary of Citibank, that had an outstanding balance. Ms. Maher's complaint was filed on March 10, 2017; Northland's motion to compel, however, was not filed until some 22 months later, on Jan. 16, 2019. Ms. Maher argues that the motion to compel arbitration therefore comes too late. By participating in federal-court litigation, says Ms. Maher, Northland has waived an arbitral forum. Balancing all of the factors, Judge McNulty finds that Northland, by its litigation conduct, has waived arbitration. He does not say that the case is an egregious one: the delay is 22 months, not four years; Northland pled the existence of an arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense in its answer; Northland did not have physical possession of the relevant Agreement; and there have been no rulings on the merits of the case. There are additional factors at play, including a lack of diligence by Northland that borders on willfulness. The Judge therefore finds that Northland has, by its participation in the litigation, waived its right to compel arbitration of Ms. Maher's claims. Judge McNulty has denied Northland's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. An appropriate order accompanies the Opinion. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Maher v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 20-1857, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JENNIFER MAHER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Jason R. D'Agnenica, Esq. Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 - and - Ronald I. Levine, Esq. 210 River Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 489-7900 Defendants-Appellant NORTHLAND GROUP INC. is represented by: Aaron R. Easley, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Telephone: (908) 237-1660 E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal - and - Daniel C. Fanaselle, Esq. Daniel McKenna, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-8358 E-mail: fanaselled@ballardspahr.com - and - Denise L. Plunkett, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 223-0200 NTI SERVICES: Morse Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Morse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NTI SERVICES, CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-02173-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of the Defendant, but was not paid all overtime premium compensation owed to them under the FLSA by the Defendant. He adds that the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the required and unpaid work he performed. The Plaintiff was employed as a cable installer and technician, whereby he installed and serviced cable products. The Defendant is a Michigan corporation that does business in Ohio and engages in the installation and service of cable products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com OAKLAND, MI: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMAAL CAMERON; RICHARD BRIGGS; RAJ LEE; MICHAEL CAMERON; MATTHEW SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL BOUCHARD, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Oakland County; CURTIS D. CHILDS, in his official capacity as Commander of Corrective Services; OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-10949-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class with three subclasses: The Class: "all current and future persons detained at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic"; Pre-trial Subclass: "all current and future persons detained at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have not yet been convicted of the offense for which they are currently held in the Jail"; Post-conviction Subclass: "all current and future persons detained at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who are have been sentenced to serve time in the Jail or who are otherwise in the Jail as the result of an offense for which they have already been convicted"; and Medically-Vulnerable Subclass: "all members of the Jail Class who are also over the age of fifty, or who, regardless of age, experience an underlying medical condition that places them at particular risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, including but not limited to (a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders (including sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic disorders; (j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental disability; and/or (l) a current or recent (last two weeks) pregnancy"; and 2. appointing their counsel as class counsel. The class action seeks to require the Defendants to implement procedures that provide reasonable medical care for the Plaintiffs and keep them reasonably safe from contracting communicable disease while in custody. But some people (constituting the two subclasses) are so vulnerable to COVID-19 that no procedures could be implemented fast enough to protect them; these people must be released immediately, and they seek a writ of habeas corpus ordering just that. The Oakland County Sheriff's Office is the largest "full service" Sheriff's Office in the State of Michigan. Michigan is a state in the Great Lakes and Midwestern regions of the United States.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Krithika Santhanam, Esq. Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 728-9557 E-mail: Ksanthanam@advancementproject.org Tharvey@advancementproject.org - and - Philip Mayor, Esq. Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-6803 E-mail: pmayor@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org - and - Alexandria Twinem, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: 202-894-6126 Facsimile: 202-609-8030 E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org - and - Cary S. McGehee, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS, PC 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: 248-398-9800 E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com - and - Allison L. Kriger, Esq. LARENE & KRIGER, PLC 645 Griswold, Suite 1717 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 967-0100 E-mail: Allison.kriger@gmail.com OHIO ASSOCIATION: Court Denied Bid for Class Cert. in "Littler" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Christina Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees, Case No. 2:18-cv-01745-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to exclude report of David A. Macpherson. The Court focuses most acutely on the commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, suitability, and ascertainability requirements. Given the Court's findings that Ms. Littler's proposed classes cannot clear these hurdles, the Court need not examine numerosity or adequacy of proposed class counsel. The Court said, "Ms. Littler is correct that even if Dr. Macpherson's report contains defects, the entire report should not necessarily be excluded merely because it has objectionable aspects. The Court thus analyzes Dr. Macpherson's conclusions to determine whether any meet the requirements of Rule 702. In doing so, the Court initially focuses on Dr. Macpherson's first eight conclusions and finds that they suffer from three main flaws -- they are improper conclusions of law; they are not helpful in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue; and they are conclusory, speculative, reflect no expert methodology, and demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor." OAPSE operates as a non profit organization. The Organization provides transportation services to public and private schools, public libraries, residential, community, and technical colleges.[CC] OPTIMA HEALTH: Misclassifies Utilization Reviewers, Edwards Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, NIKIA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMA HEALTH PLAN, and SENTARA HEALTH PLANS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00192-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., April 16, 2020) arises from Defendants alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Utilization Review Employee in Virginia from approximately June 2018 to approximately November 2018. Plaintiff claims that during her employment with Defendants, she worked more than 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks during the last three years. But, because Defendants classified Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, Plaintiff received the same amount of compensation regardless of the number of hours she worked each week. Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at one-and-one-half times her regular rate of pay. Optima Health Plan and Sentara Health Plans, Inc. are health insurance companies which provide health plan coverage to approximately 450,000 members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia St., Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804)648-4848 Emails: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com - and – Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 495 Greenville Ave., Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214)790-4454 Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and – Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (281)572-0727 Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com OWNERS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Claim, Bridal Expressions Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case BRIDAL EXPRESSIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00833-SO (N.D. Ohio, April 17, 2020) arises after the Defendant refused to pay its insureds including the Plaintiff under its Business Income and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 and efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Defendant, including special property coverage, as set forth in Defendant's Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form to protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of its control. The Defendant's Special Property Coverage Form provides "Business Income" coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of operations. The Special Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases unlike many policies that provide Business Income coverage. The Defendant has denied Plaintiff's claim under its policy after it was forced to suspend business due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") as well as to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. Plaintiff Bridal Expressions, located in Mentor, Ohio, has been in business for close to twenty years, providing wedding dresses, tuxedos, and other formalwear to its local community. Its existence is now threatened because of COVID-19. Owners Insurance Company is an Ohio-based company authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and business income coverage in the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com – and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com – and – Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com – and – Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com – and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Seeks Certification of Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON VERRETT Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PELICAN WASTE AND DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035-GGG-KWR (E.D. La), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting its motion to certify a collective action and request for notice to putative class members. The Defendant offers waste disposal services.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: lif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com PENN NATIONAL: Cruz-Perez Sues Over Breach of FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAY CRUZ-PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., and HC JOLIET, LLC d/b/a HOLLYWOOD CASINO JOLIET, Case No. 1:20-cv-02577 (April 28, 2020), concerns two unlawful practices at the Defendants' Illinois casinos, whereby the Defendants violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a table games dealer. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants deducted from his wages and all others similarly situated the costs to obtain and thereafter maintain and renew Illinois Occupational Gaming Licenses. He adds that the Defendants deducted a 30-minute period per shift during a span of several months in 2017, from their wages, however, they were not provided a 30-minute meal period. The Defendants are owners and operators of gaming establishments within the State of Illinois, including Hollywood Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino Alton, and Hollywood Casino Aurora. PNG operates a hub and spoke employment structure whereby, PNG, at the operational center of the wheel, has spokes leading out to each of its individual casino subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 Facsimile: 816-714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: 816-781-0002 Facsimile: 816-781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com PER SE GROUP: Fowler Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Staff -------------------------------------------------------- SHANE FOWLER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. PER SE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Superintendent from October 2017 until June 2018 in Connecticut. According to the complaint, Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week, but Defendant paid him the same hourly rate for all hours worked including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Allegedly, Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members using its unlawful "straight time for overtime" payment scheme, thereby failing to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek at one-and-one-half times their regular rates. Per Se Group, Inc. provides staffing, consulting, and payroll services for companies in the power, oil and gas, construction, and manufacturing industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 Emails: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) 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 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as THOMAS REMICK, NADIYAH WALKER, JAY DIAZ, MICHAEL ALEJANDRO, MICHAEL DANTZLER, ROBERT HINTON, JOSEPH WEISS, JOSEPH SKINNER, SADDAM ABDULLAH, and JAMES BETHEA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion and certify the Class and Subclasses: Class: "all people held in custody within Philadelphia Department of Prisons, including two Subclasses: (1) persons who, by reason of age or medical condition, are particularly vulnerable to injury or death if they were to contract COVID- 19 (Medically-Vulnerable Subclass), and (2) persons who, by reason of their disability, are particularly vulnerable to injury or death if they were to contract COVID-19 (Disability Subclass); Medically-Vulnerable Subclass: "all current and future persons in the custody of the PDP who are 55 or older, as well as all current and future persons held of any age who have a medical condition that places them at increased risk of COVID-19 illness, injury, or death, including (a) lung disease, including who have asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, or coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders (including sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic disorders; (j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental disability; and/or (l) a current or recent (last two weeks) pregnancy"; and Disability Subclass: "all current and future persons in the custody of the PDP who have an impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of COVID-19 illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability, including who have: (a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, or coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders and/or (I) developmental disability." Because the current conditions of confinement within the PDP facilities create an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19 that may result in substantial risk of severe illness or death, and because PDP is currently holding Plaintiffs in inhumane conditions of confinement, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class for declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that because Defendants' actions and policies apply generally to all members of the Class and Subclasses who seek declaratory and injunctive relief, they meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), and the Court should grant their motion and certify the Class and Subclasses. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and other American Revolutionary sites. PDP Focuses on rehabilitation while providing safe, lawful, and humane correctional facilities.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Su Ming Yeh, Esq. Matthew A. Feldman, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch St., Suite 304S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215)-925-2966 E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org mfeldman@pailp.org - and - Nyssa Taylor, Esq. Witold J. Walczak, Esq. Hayden Nelson-Major, Esq. Ali Szemanski, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 E-mail: ntaylor@aclupa.org vwalczak@aclupa.org HNelson-Major@aclupa.org aszemanski@aclupa.org - and - David Rudovsky, Esq. Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq. Susan M. Lin, Esq. KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING, FEINBERG, & LIN, LLP 718 Arch Street, Suite 501S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 Telephone: drudovsky@krlawphila.com E-mail: jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com - and - Will W. Sachse, Esq. Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq. Mary H. Kim, Esq. Nicolas A. Novy, Esq. Theeya Musitief, Esq. DECHERT LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808 Telephone: (215) 994-2496 E-mail: Will.Sachse@dechert.com Ben.Barnett@dechert.com Mary.Kim@dechert.com Nicolas.Novy@dechert.com Theeya.Musitief@dechert.com RBC CAPITAL: Still Defends Forex Trading Suits in Canada and US --------------------------------------------------------------- RBC Capital Markets, LLC and its indirect parent, Royal Bank of Canada, continues to defend themselves in Canadian class actions and one U.S. action that is purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of plaintiffs alleging collusive behavior in foreign exchange trading, according to the United States Oil Fund, LP's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Beginning in 2015, putative class actions were brought against RBC Capital and/or Royal Bank of Canada in the U.S., Canada and Israel. These actions were each brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and allege, among other things, collusive behavior in foreign exchange trading. Various regulators are also conducting inquiries regarding potential violations of law by a number of banks and other entities, including RBC Capital, regarding foreign exchange trading. In August 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a final order approving RBC Capital's pending settlement with class plaintiffs. Certain institutional plaintiffs opted out of participating in the settlement and have brought their own claims. The Canadian class actions and one other U.S. action that is purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of plaintiffs also remain pending. RCI HOSPITALITY: Misclassifies Dancers, Bazaldua and Phillips Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA BAZALDUA, a single woman; BRANDY PHILLIPS, a single woman; and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NICOLAI ORCUTT, a single man; JOHN DELEON, a single man; MARI HERNANDEZ, a single woman; ERIC LANGAN, a single man; RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., JAI DINING SERVICES (LUBBOCK), INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00082-H (N.D. Tex., April 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully designate their exotic dancers as licensees, violate their right to receive the requisite federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees and violate their right to overtime compensation for each hour after the first forty (40) they worked in a workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bazaldua worked as an exotic dancer at Jaguars between approximately 2011 until approximately June 2018, with a few months' leave in 2012. She performed under the name, Halo. Phillips worked as an exotic dancer at Jaguars briefly in December 2017, then in mid-end January 2018 to approximately June 19, 2018. She performed under the name, Curtis. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a Houston, Texas-based company that operates strip clubs, nightclubs, topless gentlemen's clubs, adult entertainment websites and the military themed Bombshells restaurant and sports bar chain. RCI Management Services, Inc. is a management consulting company based in Texas. JAI Dining Services (Lubbock), Inc. is a Texas-based dining services provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Clara S. Acosta, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 221 N. Kansas Street, Suite 700 El Paso, TX 79901 Telephone: (915) 585-8008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com clara@lubinandenoch.com stan@lubinandenoch.com RMLS SHOP: Court Cond. Certified Class of Server Employees ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SHAKURA SLAUGHTER v. RMLS SHOP OHIO, L.L.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-03812-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, Opt-In Identification Discovery, and Court Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs, on behalf of: "all present and former tipped server employees and other employees with similar job titles and/or positions of RMLS- HOP Ohio, L.L.C. at Defendant's Hilliard, Ohio and Reynoldsburg, Ohio locations during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action [September 3, 2016] to the present." The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. Based on the facts highlighted in the Plaintiff's Motion and Reply, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that she is similarly situated to the putative class. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant classified and compensated her as an hourly tipped employee. The Defendant paid her less than the statutory minimum hourly wage by taking a tip credit. She received from customers to cover the full minimum wage. She alleges she was paid the same "sub-minimum server wage regardless of the job duties [she was] required to perform." She understands that other servers working at the IHOP locations where she worked were paid the same way. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a server from March 2018 to July 2018 at an IHOP restaurant in Hilliard, Ohio and from March 2018 to March 2019 at an IHOP restaurant in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. The Defendant is a corporate entity that owns and operates IHOP restaurants in Ohio.[CC] SARASOTA, FL: Abelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DESIREE ABELSON v. SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No. 8:19-cv-03092-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and approving notice to be sent to members of a class of: "all current and former employees of Sarasota County, Florida, who held the positions of "Caseworker II" and "Caseworker III," who worked overtime but were not paid the proper amount of overtime wages"; and 2. directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel with the last known addresses of all putative class members and the telephone number, date of birth, and last four digits of the social security number of any potential class members whose notice is returned by the post office, so that her counsel may provide effective notice to the class. The Plaintiff alleges that Sarasota County willfully failed to pay her and a class of similarly situated employees overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sarasota County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq. Y. Drake Buckman, II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A. 2023 Constitution Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231 Telephone: (941) 923-7700 Facsimile: (941) 923-7736 E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com attorney@buckmandbuckman.com SBM SITE: Faces Parhman Class Suit in California Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SBM Site Services LLC. The case is captioned as DANIEL PARHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SBM SITE SERVICES LLC, A OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584177 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case management conference will be held on Sep. 16, 2020. SBM provides building maintenance services. The Company offers janitorial, housekeeping, warehouse management, plumbing, painting, paper shredding, fire extinguisher inspections, lighting, carpet maintenance, pest control, signage designing, and interior plant maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com SENTINEL INSURANCE: Prato Seeks Proper Benefits for Policyholders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnell Prato, DDS, PLLC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Case No. 3:20-cv-05402 (W.D. Wash., April 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff cannot provide dental endodontist services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going concern. The Defendant issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Spectrum Business Owners Policy and related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages, with effective dates of July 30, 2019, to July 30, 2020. The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff promises to pay the Plaintiff for "direct physical loss of or physical damage to" covered property. The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff includes Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the coverage when due. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's property sustained direct physical loss and/or damages related to COVID-19 and/or the proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the Sentinel policy or policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and other expenses. The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss covered by the Sentinel policy or policies. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied or will deny all similar claims for coverage. Arnell Prato, DDS, PLLC, is a dental business with locations at Tacoma, Washington. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in Connecticut, with its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com SHIPT INC: Sued by Hearl for Misclassifying Personal Shoppers ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HEARL, Individually and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Individuals v. SHIPT, INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584170 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants intentionally misrepresented to personal shopper and delivery drivers for Shipt that they were independent contractors and, therefore, not entitled to wages for non-productive time, reimbursements for expenses incurred in relation to their employment, workers' compensation insurance benefits, and tax benefits enjoyed by employees. The class action complaint is brought under the California law for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, denial of meal breaks and rest periods, failure to properly report pay, denial of reimbursements for business-related expenses, willful misclassification, failure to indemnify for losses caused by Shipt's own negligence, unfair competition, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and fraud/intentional misrepresentation. The Plaintiff and putative class members worked or continue to work as Shoppers. Shoppers are dispatched through a mobile phone application to shop, purchase, and deliver groceries to customers at their homes and businesses. Shipt--owned by Target Corporation--is a grocery shopping and delivery service company whose workers shop for groceries from various grocery stores, including Target, Vons, Ralphs, PetCo, Office Depot, BevMo!, and Smart & Final, then deliver them to Shipt Customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com ssd@arnslaw.com SIGNAL HILL: Underpays Auditors, Butler Claims ---------------------------------------------- RICHARD BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNAL HILL TELECOM SERVICES U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00578 (W.D. Wash., April 16, 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 auditor from November 2017 until March 2020. According to the complaint, Defendant required auditors to perform auditing service to customers which typically involves editing videos of tower construction, to work until the assigned work is completed that is often more than 10 hours a day and often must be completed on their days off. Allegedly, Defendant compensated auditors, including Plaintiff, by paying them a day rate for all hours worked regardless of the number of hours they worked in a day or work week. Thereby, Defendant failed to pay auditors an overtime premium of 1.5x their regular rate for the hours over 40. Signal Hill Telecom Services U.S., Inc. provides telecom services and remote auditing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon R. Sanford, Esq. JON R. SANFORD, P.A. Post Office Box 6111 Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel: (479)968-5400 Email: jon@sanfordlawfirm.com SOUTHERN COMPANY: Faces Shiflett FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA SHIFLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SOUTHERN COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01667-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 17, 2020), alleges that Southern Company does not pay overtime to its pipeline inspectors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, the Plaintiff contends, Southern Company pays these workers a day rate with no overtime compensation, even though they work many hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Because this practice results in non-payment of overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers, the Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under FLSA. Mr. Shiflett was employed by Southern Company as a pipeline inspector. Southern Company is an energy company with operations in several states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. Kris Skaar, Esq. James M. Feagle, Esq. Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Dr. Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Telecopier: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Gorss TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GORSS MOTELS, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00546-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more faxes on or about the dates set forth stating: (1) " Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Sprint Exclusive iPhone Promotion!," "Now through December 1 move service from any carrier and receive a new iPhone 5C," sent November 19, 2013; (2) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 for $49.99!!!!," and "Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G LTE tablet for $15 a month," sent December 16, 2013; (3) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!" from "Sprint," sent July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham Hotel owners, general managers and staff members," and "Get Unlimited Talk, Text and Data for only $54/month" through "Sprint," sent February 2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the Sprint Family Share Pack" for "less than $100/mo," sent August 13, 2015." In the alternative, if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish between faxes received on a "stand-alone" fax machine and faxes received via "online fax service" following the order by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the Federal Communication Commission in In re Amerifactors Fin. Group, LLC Pet. for Expedited Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, Declaratory Ruling, 2019 WL 6712128 (CGAB Dec. 9, 2019), then Plaintiffs seek to certify these classes: Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more faxes via a "stand-alone fax machine" on or about the dates set forth stating: (1) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Sprint Exclusive iPhone Promotion!," "Now through December 1 move service from any carrier and receive a new iPhone 5C," sent November 19, 2013; (2) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 for $49.99!!!!," and "Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G LTE tablet for $15 a month," sent December 16, 2013; (3) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!" from "Sprint," sent July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham Hotel owners, general managers and staff members," and "Get Unlimited Talk, Text and Data for only $54/month" through "Sprint," sent February 2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the Sprint Family Share Pack" for "less than $100/mo," sent August 13, 2015"; and Online Fax Services Class: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more faxes via an "online fax service" on or about the dates set forth stating: (1) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Sprint Exclusive iPhone Promotion!," "Now through December 1 move service from any carrier and receive a new iPhone 5C," sent November 19, 2013; (2) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 for $49.99!!!!," and "Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G LTE tablet for $15 a month," sent December 16, 2013; (3) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!" from "Sprint," sent July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham Hotel owners, general managers and staff members," and "Get Unlimited Talk, Text and Data for only $54/month" through "Sprint," sent February 2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the Sprint Family Share Pack" for "less than $100/mo," sent August 13, 2015." This case arises out of 18,915 facsimiles (or Faxes) successfully sent to Plaintiff and the proposed class on November 19, 2013, December 16, 2013, July 1, 2014, February 2, 2015, and August 13, 2015, advertising the commercial products and services of Defendant Sprint Solutions Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that the Faxes violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Sprint Solutions was founded in 2002. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of electronic parts and electronic communications equipment.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com - and - Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com STONEMOR GP: Lehman-Clements Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Lehman-Clements, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STONEMOR GP LLC, STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, STONEMOR PARTNERS L.P., STONEMOR INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00911 (N.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought to challenge the Defendants' practice of not paying all wages earned, which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio overtime compensation statute and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the demands of family counselors' and family advisors' jobs required many more than 40 working hours per week, and, in many cases, mandated that family counselors and family advisors work more than 40 hours per week. Yet, the Defendants instructed its family counselors and family advisors to report fewer hours on their timecards and/or in the company's electronic timekeeping system than actually worked, so as to reduce or eliminate recorded compensable regular and overtime hours. Thus, in weeks where the Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis, they were not paid all wages earned when due, and were often deprived of minimum wage and/or overtime premiums for those compensable hours worked but not recorded in timekeeping records, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a family counselor and/or family advisor from 2010 through 2019. StoneMor is the second largest owner and operator of cemeteries in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. 2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. THE FUCHS FIRM LLC 3961 Silsby Road University Heights, OH 44113 Phone and Fax: 216-505-7500 Email: josh@fuchsfirm.com - and - James J. Hux, Esq. HUX LAW FIRM, LLC 3 Severance Circle #18147 Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 Phone: (937) 315-1106 Fax: (216) 359-7760 Email: jhux@huxlawfirm.com SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stiching Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Stiching Depository APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stiching Depository APG Fixed Income Credits Pool filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 31, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, MARGARET M. KEANE, and BRIAN D. DOUBLES, Case No. 18-cv-1818, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit asserts that Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the Company's underwriting practices and the impact those changes in underwriting were having on its private-label card business, violates Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Synchrony common stock between October 21, 2016, and November 1, 2018, inclusive. Synchrony is the largest provider of private-label credit cards in the United States. The Company provides a broad range of credit products through programs established with leading retailers. Specifically, Synchrony issues store-branded credit cards from retailers such as Lowe's, Walmart, Amazon, and The Gap, which promote Synchrony's credit products on the expectation of increased sales and strengthened customer loyalty. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Synchrony Financial, Case No. 20-1352, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Stiching Depository APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stiching Depository APG Fixed Income Credits Pool are represented by: Salvatore Graziano, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1538 E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com Defendants-Appellees Synchrony Financial, et al., are represented by: Jared Gerber, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 1 Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2507 E-mail: jgerber@cgsh.com - and - Meredith Kotler, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277-4000 - and - James T. Shearin, Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 Telephone: (203) 330-2240 - and - Evan I. Cohen, Esq. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP 6 Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-5000 - and - Daniel Craig Lewis, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-8691 TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Suit Nixed by Court-Approved Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tenet Healthcare Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the case styled Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., has been dismissed after the court approved the parties' settlement agreement. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including the Company's Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In January 2019, the district court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs' subsequent appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied in March 2019. In April 2019, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' request for additional review of the district court's ruling, and the Company learned in August 2019 that the plaintiffs did not request further review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs advised the court that they were proceeding on behalf of the three named individuals. On November 20, 2019, at court-ordered mediation, the parties entered into a confidential settlement to resolve the three plaintiffs' individual claims for an immaterial amount. In January 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the court approved, and the case was dismissed. Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The joint motion of the lead plaintiff and the defendants to consolidate lawsuits pending in the District of Connecticut related to the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation" remains pending, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. These cases include: * A lawsuit initially filed on July 17, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva stock through that plan; * A lawsuit initially filed on August 3, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by OZ ELS Master Fund, Ltd. and related entities; * Putative securities class actions initially filed on August 21 and 30, 2017, by Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs; * Sixteen complaints initially filed between August 2018 and July 2019, against Teva and current and former officer and director defendants seeking unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses; and * A putative securities class action initially filed on June 21, 2019, by the Employees' Retirement System of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors. After those two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation"). The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 3, 2018, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. On September 25, 2019, the court denied in substantial part and granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued during the class period. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. Also on December 13, 2019, lead plaintiff and the defendants filed a joint motion to consolidate with the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation related actions against Teva and its current and former officers and directors that are pending in the District of Connecticut. That motion is pending before the court. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Direct Buyers' Claims Pending in AndroGel Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The claims of direct purchasers challenging both Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's December 2011 settlement with AbbVie, and a September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from which Teva later acquired certain assets and liabilities, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. relating to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel), remain pending, according to Teva's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In September 2014, the FTC sued AbbVie Inc. and certain of its affiliates ("AbbVie") as well as Teva in federal court in Philadelphia alleging that they violated the antitrust laws when they entered into a December 2011 settlement agreement to resolve the AndroGel(R) patent litigation and a supply agreement under which AbbVie agreed to supply Teva with an authorized generic version of TriCor(R). The FTC alleges that Teva agreed to delay the entry of its generic testosterone gel product in exchange for entering into the TriCor supply agreement. In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC's claim concerning the settlement and supply agreements, and thus dismissed Teva from the case entirely. The FTC proceeded with a separate claim against AbbVie alone and in June 2018, following a bench trial, the court held that AbbVie had violated the antitrust laws by filing sham patent infringement lawsuits against both Teva and Perrigo in the underlying AndroGel patent litigation. The court ordered AbbVie to pay US$448 million in disgorgement but declined to award injunctive relief. The FTC filed a notice of appeal as to, among other things, the district court's May 2015 dismissal of the FTC's claim against Teva, but in February 2019, the FTC stipulated to dismiss Teva from its appeal, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree. In August 2019, two groups of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed similar claims against AbbVie and Teva, in the same federal court in Philadelphia where the FTC's claims had been pending. The first group, comprised of the three direct purchasers that had sought class certification in the Georgia AndroGel(R) case, were challenging Teva's December 2011 settlement with AbbVie, but in December 2019, Teva reached a settlement agreement with these plaintiffs. The second group, comprised of other direct purchasers, have filed claims challenging both Teva's December 2011 settlement with AbbVie and the September 2006 AndroGel(R) settlement between Watson and Solvay. Those claims remain pending. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Namenda IR -------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face antitrust lawsuits related to settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories, LLC and the generic manufacturers to resolve patent litigation over Namenda IR(R), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In May 2015, a purported class of end payers for Namenda IR(R) (memantine hydrochloride) filed a lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, LLC ("Forest"), the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva. In November 2019, two additional plaintiffs filed a similar lawsuit – purportedly as opt-outs from the end payers class – against the same defendants. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers to resolve patent litigation over Namenda IR(R) violated the antitrust laws. Annual sales of Namenda IR(R) at the time of the settlement were approximately US$1.1 billion and approximately US$550 million at the time other manufacturers first launched generic versions of Namenda IR(R) in July 2015. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself in various state and federal cases related to opioid sales and distribution, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Since May 2014, more than 2,000 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies, tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Other cases remain pending in various states. In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several states in 2020. A court in New York has set a date, for a liability trial only, to start in March 2020. A court in California also set a date for a trial to start in June 2020. Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related to Teva's generic opioid products. In addition, approximately 350 complaints have named Anda, Inc. (and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate medical purposes. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. Teva Pharmaceutical said, "An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows." Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. THERAPEUTIC HEMP: Berger Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY BERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPEUTIC HEMP, INC. d/b/a 420 CENTRAL, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00762 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous text messages on his cellular telephone number ending in -8552, which was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about March 1, 2018, from Defendant's multiple telephone numbers. Allegedly, Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone and begun contacting Plaintiff during or about March 2018 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's products without Plaintiff prior express consent to receive such text messages. Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the acts of Defendant by invading his privacy. Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble damages and injunctive relief. Therapeutic Hemp, Inc. d/b/a 420 Central is a cannabis dispensary. [BN] The 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 Tel: 877-619-8966 Fax: 866-633-0228 Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com TO-RISE LLC: Final Certification of Class Sought in Lora Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEK LORA, JEFFREY GOMEZ, SERGIO MOSCOSO, BERNARDO MENDOZA, NICHOLAS MITRANO, KEVIN MANCO, and WILMER MARIN GARCIA, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. TO-RISE, LLC and JORGE SALCEDO a/k/a JORGE E. SALCEDO JR., Case No. 16-cv-03604 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting final certification of the Class pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) for the purposes of settlement; 2. granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release appended to the supporting Declaration of William Cafaro; 3. granting final approval of the collective action settlement; 4. granting final approval of the class action settlement pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2); and 5. granting such other relief as may be fitting and proper in the judgment of this Court. To-Rise offers solutions for papper and janitorial supplies.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 Facsimile: (212) 583-7401 E-mail:BCafaro@CafaroEsq.com TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bids to Nix Treasuries Antitrust Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Motions to dismiss the consolidated class action styled, In re Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, are still pending, according to Tradeweb Markets Inc.'s Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In December 2015, more than 40 substantially similar putative class action complaints filed by individual investors, pension funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, municipalities, hedge funds and banks were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG). In November 2017, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege (a) an "Auction Conspiracy" among primary dealers of United States Treasury securities in auctions for Treasury securities and in the "when-issued" and secondary markets for such securities and other derivative financial products; and (b) a "Boycott Conspiracy" among certain primary dealers and Tradeweb Markets LLC, Tradeweb IDB Markets, Inc. and Dealerweb Inc. (collectively, the "Tradeweb Parties"). The plaintiffs purport to represent two putative classes: an "Auction Class" consisting of all persons who purchased Treasuries in an auction, transacted in Treasuries with a dealer defendant or through an exchange from January 1, 2007 through June 8, 2015, and a "Boycott Class" consisting of all persons who transacted in Treasury securities in the secondary market with a dealer defendant from November 15, 2013 to the present. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Tradeweb Parties participated in the alleged "Boycott Conspiracy" through which certain primary dealers are alleged to have boycotted trading platforms permitting "all-to-all" trading of Treasury securities. The complaint asserts claims against the Tradeweb Parties under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment under state law and seeks to permanently enjoin the Tradeweb Parties and the dealer defendants from maintaining the alleged "Boycott Conspiracy" and an award of treble damages, costs and expenses. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2018, including a separate motion to dismiss filed by the Tradeweb Parties. The motions to dismiss are pending. The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint and intend to continue to vigorously defend our position." TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-14119-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2020) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to redress Travel Resorts' repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), a federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices. The Defendant placed unsolicited prerecorded calls to Plaintiff's and the putative class members' cellular telephones in violation of the TCPA between January 29, 2020 and March 26, 2020. These unsolicited calls each featured a prerecorded voice; the voicemails left on Plaintiff's phone state that the caller originated from Defendant's "Gift Department" and urges Plaintiff to call back in order to claim her "gift" from Defendant. The Defendant did not have Plaintiff's prior express consent to place such prerecorded voice calls to her cellular telephones. Travel Resorts of America, Inc.is a travel services company based in Southern Pines, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 U.S. IMMIGRATION: Class Cert. of Immigration Detainees Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, BRENDA RUIZ TOVAR, LAWRENCE MWAURA, LUCIANO GONZALO MENDOZA JERONIMO, CORAIMA YARITZA SANCHEZ NUNEZ, JAVIER ALFARO, DUNG TUAN DANG v. DAVID JENNINGS, Acting Director of the San Francisco Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; GEO GROUP, INC.; NATHAN ALLEN, Warden of Mesa Verde Detention Facility, Case No. 3:20-cv-02731 (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order provisionally certifying a class of: "all civil immigration detainees at Yuba County Jail (YCJ) and Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility (Mesa Verde), including two subclasses: (1) all civil immigration detainees at YCJ and (2) all civil immigration detainees at Mesa Verde." The proposed class is a quintessential Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) class. The Defendants have engaged in unconstitutional behavior towards the entire class. The Defendants control the conditions of every class member's confinement. And every class member is at imminent risk of being infected by COVID-19 as a result of those conditions, says the complaint. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, principally responsible for immigration and customs enforcement, with additional responsibilities in countering transnational crime.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William S. Freeman, Esq. Sean Riordan, Esq. Angelica Salceda, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 E-mail: wfreeman@aclunc.org sriordan@aclunc.org asalceda@aclunc.org - and - Manohar Raju, Esq. Matt Gonzalez, Esq. Genna Ellis Beier, Esq. Emilou H. Maclean, Esq. Francisco Ugarte, Esq. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SAN FRANCISCO 555 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: 415-553-9319 Facsimile: 415-553-9810 E-mail: genna.beier@sfgov.org emilou.maclean@sfgov.org francisco.ugarte@sfgov.org UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Pricing Cases Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned UBER TECHNOLOGIES PRICING CASES. No. A154694. (Cal. App.) Plaintiffs appeal to the District Court the dismissal of their complaint. Plaintiff Eyad Ariekat, a taxi medallion owner, filed a class action complaint in March 2017 against Uber in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleging predatory pricing in violation of the UPA (Section 17403) and unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the UCL (Section 17200). A month later, Yellow Cab Company Peninsula, Inc. et al., filed a complaint against Uber in the Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging the same causes of action. Plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint, once again alleging predatory pricing in violation of the UPA and the UCL. Uber demurred asserting, among other things, that the statutory exemption set forth in section 17024(1), foreclosed plaintiffs' claims under the UPA and, in turn, their derivative claims under the UCL. Uber maintained the section 17024(1) exclusion precludes the application of Section 17043 and other UPA provisions, to services provided by certain private parties that are within the jurisdiction of the CPUC. Plaintiffs responded that Uber's argument is based on a misreading of the statute, and that section 17024(1) only creates an exemption from UPA claims if the CPUC actually establishes rates for good or services at issue. The trial court issued a written order sustaining Uber's demurrer with leave to amend, ruling section 17024(1), in a straightforward manner creates the exemption, from below-cost pricing liability, to entities overtly within the jurisdiction of the CPUC. When plaintiffs elected not to amend, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. Statutory Exemption—Section 17024(1)6 The parties advance on appeal the same arguments they made in the trial court. Plaintiffs maintain the statutory exemption to the UPA set forth in section 17240(1), does not apply because the CPUC, while having the authority to regulate Uber's fares, has not yet done so. Uber maintains that because the CPUC indisputably has jurisdiction over it and, indeed, has commenced extended regulatory proceedings that remain ongoing, the statutory exemption applies. As the Appellate Court indicated at the outset, three different federal district court judges in other UPA cases against Uber have concluded the exemption applies. The Appeals Court held that, "The statutory exemption to the UPA with which we are concerned provides: Nothing in this chapter applies: To any service, article or product for which rates are established under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of this State and sold or furnished by any public utility corporation, or installation and repair services rendered in connection with any services, articles or products. To any service, article or product sold or furnished by a publicly owned public utility and upon which the rates would have been established under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of this State if such service, article or product had been sold or furnished by a public utility corporation, or installation or repair services rendered in connection with any services, articles or products. In short, subsection (1) provides an exemption for privately owned public utility corporations, whereas subsection (2) provides an exemption for publically owned public utility corporations. Plaintiffs ground their assertion that the section 17024(1) exemption is inapplicable on the phrase for which rates are established under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. In their view, this language plainly requires that the CPUC must have actually set a public utility corporation's rates before the exemption applies. This is underscored, they say, by the different language employed in subsection (2) pertaining to services provided by a publicly-owned public utility corporation upon which the rates would have been established under the jurisdiction of the CPUC had the services been provided by a privately owned public utility corporation. Uber acknowledges the CPUC has not yet exerted its authority, to tell Uber that its rates are too high or too low, or to otherwise regulate the actual rate itself, but maintains that is not determinative. Rather, according to Uber, the pivotal facts are two-fold. One, the company is subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC. And, two, the CPUC has the authority to regulate Uber's rates should it choose to do so. As for the slightly different wording of subsections (1) and (2) of the statutory exemption, Uber maintains it reflects the fact the CPUC generally lacks jurisdiction over municipally-owned public utility corporations and subsection (2) extends to these municipal-owned entities the same UPA exemption provided to privately owned entities under subsection (1). Uber has the better view, as the federal district court explained in Diva Limousine,392 F.Supp.3d 1074, in a particularly thorough order granting a motion to dismiss UPA below-cost claims against the company. The Public Utilities Code expressly provides that it is within the CPUC's discretion to regulate public utilities within its jurisdiction, including by setting rates, but that the CPUC is not required to do so in all instances. The state constitution similarly provides that the CPUC may fix rates for all public utilities subject to its jurisdiction. As Diva Limousine notes, the language of section 17024, like that of many statutes, is not a paragon of clarity. However, the broader view of the statutory language that the statutory exemption turns on the jurisdictional authority of the CPUC to regulate rates, and not on whether the commission has chosen to exercise its power in a particular instance is supported by the fact that the statutory scheme allows the CPUC to consider anticompetitive concerns when regulating public utility corporations like Uber. Indeed, given that the CPUC may, but is not required, to set rates, subsection (2) must focus on whether the CPUC would have the power to regulate rates were the service being provided by a privately-owned public entity corporation and not on whether it would actually exercise that power as the courts have no such clairvoyance when examining only an analogous context. Accordingly, to ensure that privately-owned and publicly-owned public utility corporations are treated the same under the UPA, that is, to ensure that subsection (1) has the same scope and breadth as subsection (2) the pivotal issue under subsection (1), as it is under subsection (2), must be whether the CPUC has the jurisdiction to establish rates, not whether it has yet chosen to exercise that jurisdiction in a particular case. The answer to that pivotal issue here is undisputed, the CPUC has rate-setting jurisdiction over Uber. Accordingly, the statutory exemption to the UPA set forth in section 17024(1), applies and the plaintiffs' UPA claims were properly dismissed, rules the Appeals Court. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed. The full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' March 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/u75xew6 from Leagle.com Prometheus Partners, LLP, Eduardo G. Roy , 220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094 San Francisco, CA 94104 Daniel Chris Quintero - daniel.quintero@prometheus-law.com - John R. Hurley, 220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094 San Francisco, CA 94104, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Brian C. Rocca - brian.rocca@morganlewis.com - Thomas M. Peterson Thomas - peterson@morganlewis.com - Kent M. Roger - kent.roger@morganlewis.com - Sujal J. Shah- sujal.shah@morganlewis.com - for Defendant and Respondent. UNITED OF OMAHA: Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United of Omaha Life Insurance filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance, Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit focuses on the improper termination of life insurance policies. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance, Case No. 20-55435, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 26, 2020; -- Transcript is due on June 22, 2020; -- Appellant United of Omaha Life Insurance Company's opening brief is due on August 3, 2020; -- Appellee Jennifer Bentley's answering brief is due on September 2, 2020; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JENNIFER BENTLEY, as trustee of the 2001 Bentley Family Trust, and others similarly situated, is represented by: Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Paul E. Slater, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Email: pes@sperling-law.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com - and - Jason Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com Defendant-Appellant UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. Vivian Orlando, Esq. Martin Rosen, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 633 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-2800 - and - Kimberly A. Jansen, Esq. Joshua Vincent, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 704-3821 UNITED STATES: Faces Infinity Civil Rights Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America. The case is captioned as Infinity Consulting Group, LLC, doing business as: Glitz and Glam Jewelry By LJ; and Alvin Vaughn and others similarly situated v. United States of America; The United States Small Business Administration; Jovita Carranza, in her Official Capacity as Administrator of the Small Business Administration; Steven Mnuchin, in his Official Capacity as United States Secretary of the Treasury; and United States of America Department of the Treasury, Case No. 8:20-cv-00981-GJH (D. Md., April 17, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George Jarrod Hazel. The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws. The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the federal government of the United States where it serves as an executive department.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli S. Noff, Esq. Elizabeth Mcdowell Burlington, Esq. Glen E. Frost, Esq. Matthew P Kraeuter, Esq. Sean Patrick Hatley, Esq. FROST & ASSOCIATES 839 Bestgate Road, Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 497-5947 Facsimile: (888) 235-8405 E-mail: eli.noff@irstaxlitigation.com elizabeth.burlington@frosttaxlaw.com glen.frost@irstaxlitigation.com matt.kraeuter@frosttaxlaw.com sean.hatley@frosttaxlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles E.T. Roberts, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-8628 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: charles.e.roberts@usdoj.gov - and - Alan Carl Lazerow, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 36 S. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 209-4873 E-mail: Alan.Lazerow@usdoj.gov VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Doe Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00356 (M.D. Tenn., April 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant refuses to provide any tuition or fee refund for the Spring 2020 semester despite sending students home and closing its residence halls. According to the complaint, the Defendant only offered minimal adjustments for housing and meal plans, with arbitrary penalties based on the date students were able to vacate the student residential housing. If students were unable to leave campus before March 30, 2020, the Defendant decided students would receive no housing or meal plan reimbursement at all for services they were not utilizing. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's actions have financially damaged him and the Class Members. The Plaintiff brings this action because they did not receive the full value of the services paid, and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction and are seeking reimbursement of tuition, fees, and room and board on a pro-rata basis. The Plaintiff asserts that he and the class have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff is enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 academic term at the Defendant. Founded in 1873, Vanderbilt has a current enrollment of approximately 13,131 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students, with 6,886 undergraduate students, across 69 Bachelor's Degree programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tricia Herzfeld, Esq. Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615-254-8801 Facsimile: 615-255-5419 E-mail: triciah@bsjfirm.com aorlandi@bsjfirm.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com VOLUME SERVICES: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al. v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 18-CV-01139-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a proposed class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) for purposes of settlement only; 2. preliminarily approving the Notice of Class Action Settlement; 3. certifying persons as Class Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: "all employees and applicants in the United States who applied for a job, promotion or job change with Centerplate for which a background check, including a consumer report, was conducted at any time from February 22, 2011, to March 31, 2019, excluding those individuals who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication, including, but not limited to, the settlement in Phlisida Gibbs v. Centerplate, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla., No. 8- 17-cv-2187-EAK-JSS". 4. approving that Class Members will receive a Settlement Share unless they submit a valid and timely Opt-Out Form not later than 45 days after the mailing of the Fourth Amended Class Notice; 5. directing any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement, including Class 3 Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and for Class Representative payments, has until 45 days after the mailing of the Fourth Amended Class Notice to mail to the Settlement Administrator his or her written objection (and, if he or she wishes to appear at the final approval hearing, to indicate in his or her written objection an intention to appear; 6. appointing Simpluris, Inc. to act as the Settlement Administrator; 7. appointing Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez as Class Representatives; 8. appointing Shaun Setareh, Thomas Segal, and Farrah Grant of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel. 9. directing Centerplate to provide to the Settlement Administrator not later than 30 days after the date of this order; 10. directing the Settlement Administrator to mail the Fourth Amended Class Notice and Opt-Out Form, translated in English and Spanish, by first-class mail to the Class Members not later than 15 days after receipt of the Class Members' Data; A final approval hearing will be held on September 17, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class Members. Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Centerplate, operates entertainment and convention venues.[CC] VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- The cost of insurance litigation styled, Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is still ongoing, according to Voya Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The litigation is a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against the Company and also seeks declaratory relief. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. WELLS FARGO: PTS Sues Over Priority of Small Businesses' PPP Loan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Physical Therapy Specialists, P.C., on behalf of itself and those similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01190 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020), is brought to stop the Defendant's alleged conduct of not prioritizing Paycheck Protection Program loan applications of small businesses. The legislature's plan to aid small businesses, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("the CARES Act"), was enacted into law on March 27, 2020. In its initial form, the Small Business Administration's ("SBA") Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. This money was meant to provide a critical and immediate life raft to businesses, who have been shut down pursuant to their state's "stay at home" order or have been effectively shuttered due to a dramatic drop-off in business. The Defendant, however, decided to ensure that the applications of its favored clients would be prioritized at the expense of the small business customers the PPP was designed to benefit, according to the complaint. This not only helped curry favor with the clients most important to the Defendant's bottom line, but would, because of the high loan amounts, generate more loan origination fees for the Defendant with less effort and expense. As a result, only a small percent of the Defendant's retail, "Small Business" customers that tried to apply for PPP loans were approved, while the majority of the Defendant's larger, "Commercial Banking" clients were approved. Worse, the Defendant concealed from the public that it was prioritizing the applications on a basis other than first-come, first served. Had the Defendant disclosed its self-serving prioritization, the Plaintiff could have, and would have, submitted its PPP applications to other financial institutions that were actually processing applications on a first-come, first-served basis. As a result, thousands of small businesses, including the Plaintiff, that were entitled to loans under the PPP were denied access to the funds because the Defendant failed to comply with the rules and the intent of the program--to serve the needs of its small business customers, says the complaint. P.T. Specialists is a Colorado professional service corporation and is a small business operating a physical therapy clinic. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is a federally chartered national bank, with its main office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariane M. Ice, Esq. Thomas Erskine Ice, Esq. ICE LEGAL, P.A. 20 Portsmouth Ave., Suite 1, No. 225 Stratham, NH 03885 Phone: (603) 242-150 Email: ariane.ice@icelegal.com WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Reaches MOU to Settle MDL in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs, agreeing to settle all claims in the class action suit related to the consent decree entered by the company and Knorr-Bremse AG. On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. No monetary fines or penalties were imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants' actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs. On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs. On January 21, 2020, following Court-sponsored early mediation, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs, agreeing to settle all claims in the case. The parties intend to seek Court approval of the agreed settlement terms and amount. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as Wabtec Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for the rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Natural Gas Price Index Class Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that two putative class actions related to alleged manipulation of published gas price indices remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court. The Company said, "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and class actions against us, our former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. "In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court. "We reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class members. The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered the same day. "Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court. "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments." The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WRIGHT MEDICAL: 72 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at Dec. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that it continues to defend itself against 72 unresolved personal injury lawsuits related to PROFEMUR(R). The Company has received claims for personal injury against it associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of December 29, 2019, there were approximately 22 unresolved pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 50 unresolved pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada). These lawsuits generally seek monetary damages. Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. WRIGHT MEDICAL: SEC Solicitation Statement Lacks Info, Curtis Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V., GARY D. BLACKFORD, JOHN L. MICLOT, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, DAVID D. STEVENS, ELIZABETH WEATHERMAN, J. PATRICK MACKIN, KEVIN C. O'BOYLE, AMY S. PAUL, RICHARD F. WALLMAN, STRYKER CORPORATION, and STRYKER B.V., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00509-UNA (D. Del., April 15, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged deliberate violation of the Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff owns Wright Medical common stock. The complaint arises from the proposed transaction announced on November 4, 2019 pursuant to the merger plan of Wright Medical Group N.V. with Stryker Corporation and Stryker B.V. caused by Wright Medical's Board of Directors, in which all of the Wright Medical's outstanding common stock will be purchased by Buyer for $30.75 per share in cash. In connection with the proposed transaction, Defendants filed a Solicitation /Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019. However, the Solicitation Statement was false and misleading because there were omitted material information regarding the Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Guggenheim Securities, and the engagement of the Company's additional advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. The complaint asserts that the omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material to Plaintiff and the Class because it supposedly provide them basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows them to better understand the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor. Also, the omissions deprived Plaintiff and the Class of their entitlement to make fully informed decision with respect to the proposed transaction. Gary D. Blackford, John L. Miclot, Robert J. Palmisano, David D. Stevens, Elizabeth Weatherman, J. Patrick Mackin, Kevin C. O'Boyle, Amy S. Paul, and Richard F. Wallman are Board of Directors of Wright Medical Group N.V. Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company focused on extremities and biologics products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. 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 WRIGHT MEDICAL: William Grubb Sues Over Stryker Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by William Grubb related to its acquisition of Stryker Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019. The Company said, "On January 31, 2020, William Grubb, a purported shareholder of our company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against us and members of our board of directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Grubb v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00553 (Grubb Complaint). The Grubb Complaint alleges that we and the members of our board of directors violated federal securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which the Grubb Complaint alleges rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false and misleading. In addition, the Grubb Complaint alleges that members of our board of directors acted as controlling persons of the company within the meaning and in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9. The Grubb Complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; a declaration that the defendants violated certain federal securities laws and regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including counsel fees and expenses and expert fees." Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Take Data Security Precautions, Jimenez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, THERESE JIMENEZ, individually, on behalf of her minor child M.F., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02591 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) arises from an article published by Joseph Cox on the website of American-based Canadian digital media and broadcasting company Vice Media Group LLC on March 26, 2020 alleging that the Defendant's Zoom iPhone app was sending users' personal data to Facebook, unbeknownst to users, even if they didn't have a Facebook account. In response, on March 27, 2020, Zoom published a statement from its Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Eric Yuan, admitting that the Zoom iPhone app had been sending users' personal data to Facebook, and that Zoom was unaware of this data transfer until two days prior. Nevertheless, Zoom maintained that it "takes its users' privacy extremely seriously" and that its "customers' privacy is incredibly important to" Zoom. On March 29, 2020, Zoom broadly revised its privacy policy claiming it was only an update. Zoom's pre-March 29, 2020 privacy policy stated plainly that "Whether you have Zoom account or not, we may collect Personal Data from or about you when you use or otherwise interact with our Products." Zoom's post-March 29, 2020 privacy policy provides a more complicated explanation which, in essence, explains the same thing: regardless of whether a user has opened an account or not Zoom is collecting personal data. Even though Defendant was storing sensitive personal data and providing secure video conferencing connections for both account holders and non-account holders, Defendant failed to take security precautions necessary to protect that data and those conferences. Because Defendant failed to take necessary security precautions, or properly review the functioning of its video conferencing technology, users' personal data was released to third parties, including Facebook, and secure video conferences were compromised. Certain of these users never even opened an account with Zoom, and would have no idea that Zoom was collecting their personal data or its security policy. While Zoom's wrongful conduct constitutes invasion of privacy in and of itself, entitling consumers to damages, Plaintiffs and Class members are also now placed at an increased risk of further imminent harm as a direct result of Zoom's wrongful acts and omissions. During the coronavirus pandemic Zoom's usage surged. As of the end of December 2019, the maximum number of daily meeting participants, both free and paid, conducted on Zoom was approximately 10 million. In March 2020, Zoom reached more than 200 million daily meeting participants, both free and paid. With the surge in usage also came increased scrutiny on Zoom's privacy policies. Zoom Video Communications Inc. provides a cloud-based communications platform for video and audio conferencing to both business and individual consumers headquartered in California. Zoom's products and services can be used across mobile devices, desktops, telephones, and room systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com [^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class --------------------------------------------------- Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May 28 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win over the client. Register now and learn the following: -- Primary elements in responding to a lead -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics -- Developing effective screening criteria -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first contact -- Minimize lead loss -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets Benefits: -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI -- Maximize the size of your class -- Reduce acquisition cost per client Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will present what his company has learned after completing millions of new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies. Thurs., May 28 2 p.m. Eastern Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV ********* 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 ***