/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200608.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 114 Headlines 45 TUDOR: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez et al. Allege ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to S.D. New York ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Must Refund Season Passes, Kress Argues AMERICAN INCOME: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Joh Suit AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Mattresses' Design Is Defective, Ladas Says AMLI MANAGEMENT: Mims Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. ANIMAX DESIGNS: Casting Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages BAJCO INT'L: Valesh Seeks to Certify Drivers Class BED BATH: GreenPan Has Toxic Coating, Pintsopoulos Suit Claims BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Appeals Ruling in Canady Suit to 9th Cir. BRIGADOON FITNESS: Can File Amended Answer in Gorss Motels Suit BUREAU OF PRISONS: Lompoc Inmates Seek to Certify COVID Suit CAREGIVERS OF AMERICA: Thompson Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA CAREONE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Modise et al. Claim CARRINGTON COLLEGE: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Jones Says CAVALRY PORTOFOLIO: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CEDAR SHAKES: Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Harvey Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES: Doughty Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma CHARTWELL AURORA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Death CHURCH & DWIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Devane Suit CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Hallockshannon Sues Over PPP Loan Agent Fees CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Marron BIPA Suit Over Usage of Biometric Info CLEARVIEW AI: Thornley Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois CLERMONT YORK: Schneier Sues Over Wrongly Deregulated Apartments COLE HAAN: Adams Sues Over Sham Discounting Scheme CONSUMER PROTECTION: Settlement in Linton Suit Vacated CORECIVIC INC: Immigration Detainees' Suit Underway in California COURIERNET INC: Gobena Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA & NCWHA CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed in Zurakov DAIRY FARMERS: 2nd Cir. Upholds $110K Attorneys Fees in Allen Suit DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Fox Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California DARE COUNTY, NC: COVID Ban Violates Constitution, Blackburn Says DENNY'S INC: Underpays Staff, Deleon Claims DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Certifies Hawaii Class in Gonzalez Suit EAGLE LAND: Evans Seeks OT Pay for Title Abstractors Under FLSA EARTH CARE: Castillo Suit Seeks OT Pay for Landscapers Under FLSA ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Hunter Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop EMBRY RIDDLE: Rhodes Sues to Seek Prorated Reimbursement of Fees EXPRESSJET AIRLINES: Bothwell Sues to Recover Denied Benefits FAT BRANDS: Dec. 29 Fact Discovery Cut-Off Set in Vignola Suit FAT BRANDS: Rojany Class Cert. Hearing Set for Sept. 10 FCA US: Conceals Engine Defects to Buyers, Gizzarelli et al. Claim FEDERAL INSURANCE: Production of Docs #12 Compelled in Abramson FERROGLOBE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Treankler Consolidated Suit Pending FIRST CHINESE: Guzman Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York FMA ALLIANCE: Preisler Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation FOREST RIVER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges FRANKLIN CREDIT: Merhaut Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Staley Antitrust Suit GOLDEN VALLEY: Fails to Protect Medical Info, Doe Suit Alleges GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Addresses Counsel Communications in Chen-Oster GOLI NUTRITION: Borgia Disputes Gummy Product's Nutritional Claims HARTFORD FIN'L: Pure Fitness Seeks Payment for COVID Losses HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Metro Dental Seeks Payment for COVID Losses HAVEN DINER: Kitchen Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips HILTON EL SEGUNDO: Jacques ADA Suit Removed to C.D. California HONDA MOTOR: Fails to Fix Defective Fuel Pumps, Oliver Says III OFFICE RESOURCE: Cerda FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Tex. JACKSON HEWITT: Court Narrows Claims in Mardis Class Suit JP MORGAN: Orozco and Rosales Sue Over Employment Discrimination LONGFIN CORP: Revisions to Class Notice in Securities Suit Ordered LOVE'S COUNTRY: Renteria Files Suit in California Super. Ct. LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in Howard FDCPA Suit MATADOR PRODUCTION: Court Issues Protective Order in Martin Suit MDL 2948: Joining of 10 Data Privacy Suits in S.D. Ill. Sought MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Taylor Alleges MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Kaur Suit MINNESOTA: Court Dismisses Munt Prisoner Suit Without Prejudice NATERA INC: Judgment on Pleadings in Warren Police Suit Upheld NATIONAL FUTURES: Customer Data Exposed, Kumaran Claims NEWREZ LLC: Richards RESPA Suit Removed to District of Maryland NORTHEAST TREATMENT: Devine Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA and PMWA PATENAUDE & FELIX: Carlos Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Circuit PORCELANA CORONA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fessler Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA POST FOODS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Krommenhock Suit POSTAL FLEET: Garner Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Drivers Under FLSA PRO CUSTOM: Bid to Compel Discovery in Becker Suit Partly Granted PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Simon Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Curtis Suit PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Pieczonka Appeals N.D. Ohio Order to 6th Cir. REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Royalty Claims in 2020 Q3 REGIONS BANK: Hollins Sues in E.D. Missouri Over TCPA Violation RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Copyright Act Claims in Saint-Amour Junked RJ VAN DRUNEN: Morales Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois RYDER SYSTEM: Artificially Inflates Earnings, Key West Fund Says SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Tableau Merger SANITARIOS LAMOSA: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Cone Liability Suit SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Roehrkasse Class Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia SAVASENIORCARE ADMIN: Faces Farhan Employment Suit in California SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Marti Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit SEAM GROUP: Trafficked Workers to U.S., Peregrina Claims SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kennington Alleges SIERRA PACIFIC: Faces Deguzman Employment Suit in California SK ENERGY: Faces Kravitz Suit Over Gas Price Antitrust Conspiracy SMARTGUARD INC: Faces Ortega Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. SPECTRUM CHARTERS: Alexander Files ERISA Suit in Fla. STATE FARM: Tufano Appeals Auto Insurance Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Leo Balks at Proposed Sale to A Menarini TETRA TECH: Brown et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff TEXAS PRIDE: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part TIVITY HEALTH: Court Raises Concerns in Lackawanna Modified Motion TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Shoemaker Liability Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Murell Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA TZUMI ELECTRONICS: Misrepresents mAh of Power Banks, Talley Says UNITED ASSOCIATION: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Poe ERISA Suit UNITED STATES: BOP Faces Sullivan Civil Rights Suit in D. Hawaii UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Reopen Jenkins Suit UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Student's Lawsuit Seeks Tuition Refund UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: FIU Student Files Class Action Over Fees UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: Regents Face Vijay Suit in W.D. Oklahoma VAIL CORPORATION: Refuses Ski Passes Cost Refund, Gasman Alleges VAIL RESORTS: Refuses Refund After COVID-19 Closure, Dipirro Says VALLO TRANSPORTATION: Chen Sues Over Failure to Refund Payments VASILE PROPERTIES: Faces Castle Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Krauss Labor Suit WARNER MUSIC: Court Issues Protective Order in Williams Suit WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks to Certify Collective Action WE COMPANY: Vernet Sues Over Misleading Statements to Investors` WILLIS TOWERS: Tang Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Acquisition by Aon WORLD TRIATHLON: Refuses Refunds of Nixed Events, Ellenwood Says [*] Bricker & Eckler Attorney Discusses Tuition Refund Lawsuits ********* 45 TUDOR: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez et al. Allege ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ CUAUTLE, VICTOR AMARO HERNANDEZ, LUICIANO REYES RAMON and VILSON CELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 45 TUDOR RESTAURANT LLC (D/B/A TUDOR CITY STEAKHOUSE), ST. GILES HOTEL LLC (D/B/A ATTO PRIME STEAKHOUSE), SYLVAN HOSPITALITY GROUP INC. (D/B/A ATTO PRIME STEAKHOUSE), JOHN LEKIC, MIRSAD LEKIC (A/K/A MIRSO LEKIC), and AIDA LEKIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04250 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated workers appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and for failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their total hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, dishwashers, salad makers, food runners, and waiters at the three restaurants owned and operated by the Defendants between October 2018 and February 2020. 45 Tudor Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Tudor City Steakhouse, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 45 Tudor City Pl, New York, New York. St. Giles Hotel LLC, d/b/a Atto Prime Steakhouse, a restaurant owner and operator located at 120 E 39th Street, New York, New York. Sylvan Hospitality Group Inc., d/b/a Atto Prime Steakhouse, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 120 E 39th Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIA BARAHONA ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 155417/2018 (Filed June 8, 2018), was removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 20, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03930 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has sought to recover wages and benefits allegedly owed under New York law. The Plaintiff is a former homecare employee of the Defendant. Alliance for Health provides personal care services and skilled nursing.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Felice B. Ekelman, Esq. Ryan C. Chapoteau, Esq. Christopher M. Repole, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, Floor 29 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4000 ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Must Refund Season Passes, Kress Argues --------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD KRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY U.S. INC.; IKON PASS, INC.; AND DOES ALTERRA 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01583-RBJ (D. Colo., June 2, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to refund the unusable portion of the Season Passes or Ikon Passes for the 2019-20 ski season. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased Season Passes or Ikon Passes for the 2019-20 ski season. The Plaintiff and the Class and were unable to use the remaining value in their passes after Alterra closed its ski resorts early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants have refused to refund Plaintiff and Class members for the unusable portion of the passes. By refusing to refund to customers the monies paid for passes they can no longer use – money that they need to provide for themselves and their families during the crisis – the Defendants shifted the financial burden of the crisis onto the Plaintiff and the Class who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for lift tickets and passes to ski or snowboard at Alterra's resorts. Alterra Mountain Company provides skiing facilities. The Company owns and operates mountain resorts and offers heli-skiing adventure tours, as well as provides helicopter access to skiable terrain. Alterra Mountain serves customers in Colorado. [US] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com AMERICAN INCOME: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Joh Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied final approval of the proposed class action settlement in in the case captioned DAVID JOH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06364-TSH, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are former insurance salesperson trainees or agents of American Life Insurance Company (AIL), who trained and worked at locations in California. Plaintiffs allege that as prospective AIL agents, trainees underwent training that lasted one week or more, during which they did not earn a commission and were not otherwise paid. They allege that AIG promised prospective agents salaried positions, but then hired them as commission-only employees, and failed to pay or reimburse them while they worked as sales agents. They allege that as trainees and agents they were not paid a minimum wage or overtime pay, did not receive proper meal and rest breaks, and had to pay their own work-related expenses. They also allege that agents were subject to "chargebacks," meaning that if they sold policies and those policies were later cancelled by the customer, AIL illegally collected back commissions from the agents earned wages. Upon engaging in negotiations, the parties have reached a class settlement in the case. The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are: Class Definition: The Settlement includes, "all individuals who trained to become and/or worked as sales agents in California for Defendant during the last four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in Joh and whose training and/or work began before the date of preliminary approval of this settlement." Settlement Benefits: AIL will pay a total settlement amount of $5,750,000. The Agreement contemplates amounts paid to class members, including Plaintiffs, after excluding: settlement fund costs and fees; administration costs of approximately $49,500; any incentive awards to Plaintiffs, up to $7,500 each ($22,500 total); any attorneys' fees and costs awarded, equal to not more than $1,437,500 in fees (approximately 25% of the value of the Settlement fund) plus litigation costs of $32,000; and a payment of $75,469 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") pursuant to PAGA. Individual settlement payments will be calculated proportionately based on the number of workweeks a class member accumulated while training or working as an agent for AIL. Class members who never entered into an agent contract with AIL, those who never completed training but who underwent at least one day of training with AIL, will receive a rebuttable one-work training presumption, double weighted. All class members who entered into an agent contract with AIL after training during the class period will receive a rebuttable four-workweek training presumption, double weighted, plus the total number of weeks contracted as agents with AIL during the class period. Class members who trained prior to the class period but worked as agents during the period will receive a share of the net settlement amount based on the number of weeks worked as agents during the class period. Individual settlement amounts will average $590.52, and the maximum allocation is estimated to be $5,548.54. Alissa Golz objects that trainees' claims make up a larger portion of the estimated total liability than what trainees could possibly obtain from the final Settlement amount, and that this is unfair. The Court finds merit in this objection. Plaintiffs estimate that the largest chunk - roughly 50% - of the maximum total liability in the case is for waiting-time penalties, approximately $15,742,320 of a total $31,273,212. Plaintiffs determined that the number of agents and trainees who no longer work for AIL - those former employees who might be entitled to waiting-time penalties - is 5,963. Plaintiffs estimate that there were 1,486 trainees during the class period who did not become agents, meaning that trainees made up just under 25% of the class members entitled to penalties for waiting time. Claims for waiting-time penalties accrue only once, one per former employee, meaning that 25% of the waiting-time penalties were attributable to trainees. Under the Settlement, however, claims are distributed pro rata based on the number of workweeks worked. As Golz points out, agent workweeks are far more numerous than trainee workweeks, 152,000 agent workweeks versus only 20,054 training weeks. Yet the 1,486 trainees will receive a presumptive two workweeks for a total of 2,972. This means that trainees will presumptively receive only roughly 2% of the settlement value attributable to waiting-time claims, even though they account for 25% of those claims, which claims make up nearly 50% of the estimated value of maximum total liability in this case. Put another way, trainee waiting-time penalties make up approximately 12.6% of the estimated maximum total liability - as estimated by Plaintiffs - yet their share of the total Settlement fund would be diluted to approximately 2% - a disparity of 10%, or over $400,000 of the estimated $4,133,031 remaining of the Settlement amount for distribution. Here Plaintiffs admit that trainees' claims are easier to prove and, importantly, are "more valuable," and yet agents will come out in the end with almost the entirety of the value of the settlement. Such an arrangement is not equitable and fair, the Court finds. Accordingly, the Court cannot approve the Settlement agreement and Plaintiffs motion must be denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx2tmnq7 Leagle.com David Joh, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aarin April Zeif - aarin@wageandhourlaw.com - Gould and Associates, Michael A. Gould - michael@wageandhourlaw.com - Gould & Associates & Steven M. Tindall - smt@classlawgroup.com - Gibbs Law Group LLP. David Hamilton & Bridget Smith, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey B. Kosbie - jlove@gibbsgiden.com - Gibbs Law Group LLP, Amanda M. Karl - amk@classlawgroup.com - Gibbs Law Group & Steven M. Tindall - smt@classlawgroup.com - Gibbs Law Group LLP. American Income Life Insurance Company, DOES 1 through 25, Defendant, represented by Arwen Rainbird Johnson - ajohnson@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Christopher G. Caldwell - ccaldwell@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, John Walker - jwalker@sacrowalker.com - Sacro & Walker LLP & Albert Quoc Giang - agiang@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Alisa Golz, Gene Barnes, Trevor Garz, Natalie Bell, Byron Hammond, Ashley Rai, Victoria Roberts, Charlie Moreno, Edmon Honore & Steve Pollistri, Objectors, represented by Kiley Lynn Grombacher , - kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - Bradley Grombacher, LLP. AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Mattresses' Design Is Defective, Ladas Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LADAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC., d.b.a. Value-City Furniture, Case No. 3:20-cv-00458-MAB (S.D. Ill., May 15, 2020), concerns AS Mattresses containing fiber glass, also known as glass fibers. The glass fibers contained within the Affected Mattresses are for fire retardant purposes and are larger in diameter than the type of fiberglass used in household insulation, the Plaintiff avers. According to the complaint, several models of AS mattresses containing dangerous glass fibers suffer from potentially catastrophic design defects and inadequate warning labels that can result in large amounts of glass fibers releasing from the mattresses into the surrounding environment potentially causing serious injuries and extensive property damage. One vulnerable point for glass fibers to exit from the Affected Mattresses is when the removable outer cover of the mattress is unzipped. The Plaintiff contends that once the outer cover is removed, AS's defective design exposes the inner cover, which contains a large percentage of glass fibers. Other Defects include the Affected Mattresses potentially releasing glass fibers into the environment if the Affected Mattresses sustains a small tear from normal use. In March 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a Tranquil queen mattress containing glass fibers from a VCF located in Fairview Heights, Illinois. AS is in the business of selling mattress.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Cueto, Esq. James E. Radcliffe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER CUETO, LTD. 7110 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62223 E-mail: ccueto@cuetolaw.com jradcliffe@cuetolaw.com - and - Lloyd M. Cueto, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LLOYD M. CUETO, P.C. 7110 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62223 E-mail: cuetolm@cuetolaw.com - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Ave. S. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com AMLI MANAGEMENT: Mims Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GIOVANNI MIMS, an individual and on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation: AMLI RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMLI RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. HG20053469 (Filed Feb. 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 10, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04472-VAP-E to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, including lost back pay, lost fringe benefits, damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering pursuant to the California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Code. Amli Management operates as a real estate company. The Company provides rent payment, smoke free living, and green initiative programs.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 ANIMAX DESIGNS: Casting Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Anders and Garrett Anders, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Animax Designs, Inc. and Charles W. Fawcett, III, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00412 (M.D. Tenn., May 14, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation, damages, equitable relief and other relief available under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Animax manufactures, among other items, animatronic figures of cartoon characters for use in places such as theme parks. Plaintiffs were employed by Animax as Lead Casting Technicians. Both claim to have rendered in excess of 50 hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Tel: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com BAJCO INT'L: Valesh Seeks to Certify Drivers Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Valesh On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Bajco International, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00028-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all current and former delivery drivers who worked at any Bajco Group Papa John's Pizza location within the three years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter"; and designating himself as the representative of the class.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick I. Jones, Esq. WITHERED BURNS & WILLIAMS, LLP 8 North Third Street, Suite 401 Lafayette, IN 47902-0499 Telephone: (765) 742-1988 Facsimile: (765) 742-8774 E-mail: pjones@witheredlaw.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Nathan Spencer, Esq. Biller & Kimble, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com BED BATH: GreenPan Has Toxic Coating, Pintsopoulos Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES PINTSOPOULOS v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Case No. CACE-20-008235 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 18, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure in connection to the Defendant's GreenPan products, which have coating that allegedly contains toxic compounds. GreenPan makes several types of non-stick cookware, including the Product, which are coated with its patented "ThermolonTM" ceramic non-stick coating. GreenPan's Products are available and sold at brick-and-mortar and online retailers, such as Amazon.com, WalMart, Target, Williams Sonama, and Bed Bath & Beyond. On the packaging attached to its non-stick products GreenPan advertises that its non-stick Products are "NON-TOXIC," "HEAL THY CERAMIC NON-STICK," and contain "No PFOA, PFAS, Lead or Cadmium." On its Web site, http://www.greenpan.us/,Green Pan advertised that its non-stick pans are "healthy," are not made from "toxic chemicals," are "Good for the environment" and are "reinforced .with diamonds." GreenPan further claims on its Web site that GreenPans are "green" products because "60% less carbon dioxide is emitted during the curing phase of production of Thermolon coatings." The Plaintiff contends that GreenPan Products are not, in fact, toxic free but contain compounds that are known to be toxic. The patent for Thermolon (TM) coating, which is applied to every Green Pan Product, contains several known toxins, he adds. On April 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased GreenPan (TM) Rio Ceramic Nonstick 12-inch Fry Pan from Defendant's online store. The Product had not been altered between manufacture and point of sale, says the complaint. Bed Bath is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN 1281 N. Ocean Dr., Apt. 198 Singer Island, FL 33404 Telephone: 832 715 2788 Facsimile: 561 688 0630 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Appeals Ruling in Canady Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Tonya Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-04738-DWL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Tonya Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp., Case No. 20-15997, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation's opening brief is due on July 20, 2020; -- Appellee Tonya Canady's answering brief is due on August 19, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TONYA CANADY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. KENT LAW OFFICES 3219 E. Camelback Road, Suite 588 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Defendant-Appellant BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION is represented by: Katherine Anderson Sanchez, Esq. Brian Schulman, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Telephone: (602) 798-5400 - and - Marcos D. Sasso, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-4324 BRIGADOON FITNESS: Can File Amended Answer in Gorss Motels Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the case captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., an Indiana corporation, BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-330-HAB, (N.D. Ind.). On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff Gorss Motels sued Defendant Brigadoon Fitness, Inc. for transmitting a single junk fax in 2013 in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Brigadoon seeks leave to amend its answer to include a collateral estoppel defense based on the 11th Circuit decision in Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Sys., LP, 931 F.3d 1094 (11th Cir. 2019) ("the Safemark Decision"). That decision, rendered July 26, 2019, held that Gorss gave prior express permission to receive faxes from Safemark by virtue of language contained in Gorss' franchise agreements with Wyndham Hotel Group. Gorss objects to this attempt to amend claiming that Brigadoon unduly delayed in bringing the amendment and, that even if the delay is justified, the amendment is futile. The Court opines that Gorss' first argument, that of undue delay, initially has some teeth. Brigadoon moved to amend, some nine months after the rendering of the Safemark Decision. What Gorss fails to mention, however, is that the case was stayed, with the exception of briefing on those motions, until December 11, 2019, when the Court lifted the stay and permitted discovery to resume. So, the Court points out, with that adjustment, the period of delay is approximately four months, certainly not egregious considering "[d]elay alone is usually not a sufficient reason to deny a motion to amend." Biomet Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, No. 3:13-CV-176 JVB, 2015 WL 13657627, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 27, 2015) (citing Soltys, 520 F.3d at 743). The Court also notes that Gorss does not assert prejudice from the delay, and rightfully so. If leave to amend is granted, Gorss will be prejudiced to the extent that it will need to defend against this affirmative defense, a task it has already proven capable of doing by its extensive opposition brief to the present motion. However, being required to defend against new allegations made in pleadings is not the sort of prejudice that is undue in the context of amending pleadings, the Court notes. Finally, with respect to its contention related to futility, Gorss expended 17 of its 26-page opposition brief discussing the futility of the amendment, on the merits. In the present case, the proposed amendment is not clearly futile or legally insufficient, the Court finds. Gorss, as noted supra, is fully on notice of the collateral estoppel defense. While collateral estoppel may not win the day on summary judgment, an argument the Court is confident Gorss will emphasize in its summary judgment briefing, it is legally sufficient to survive presently. Therefore, as it would be improper to deny Brigadoon leave to amend its answer, the Court grants Brigadoon's motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6wdcos from Leagle.com. BUREAU OF PRISONS: Lompoc Inmates Seek to Certify COVID Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES; VINCENT REED; FELIX SAMUEL GARCIA; ANDRE BROWN; and SHAWN L. FEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, in his capacity as Warden of Lompoc; and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVCx (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. provisionally certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action on behalf of: "all current and future people in post-conviction custody at FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc" 2. appointing Petitioners as Class Representatives;, and 3. appointing Class Counsel, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs seeks preliminary relief under a temporary restraining order to prevent catastrophic harm to Lompoc prisoners, which is being caused by the Respondents Louis Milusnic and Michael Carvajal's failure to take adequate measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States Penitentiary, Lompoc is a medium-security United States federal prison for male inmates in California. It is part of the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex and is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry W. Bird, Esq. Dorothy Wolpert, Esq. Naeun Rim, Esq. Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq. Christopher J. Lee, Esq. Jimmy Threatt, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 1875 Century Park East, 23 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201 2100 Facsimile: (310) 201 2110 E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com dwolpert@birdmarella.com nrim@birdmarella.com sbannett@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com jthreatt@birdmarella.com - and - Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. Peter Bibring, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West 8 Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org pbibring@aclusocal.org CAREGIVERS OF AMERICA: Thompson Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ EVERY THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAREGIVERS OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; FIRST CHOICE HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, TAMMELA AP DI LEO, an individual; and MASSIMILIANO DI LEO, an individual, Case No. CACE-20-008184 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 15, 2020), alleges that the Defendants owe the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees properly calculated overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that she worked an average of about 168 hours per week and was paid a weekly sum of $940.00. She however, was never paid properly for the hours worked over 40 in a single workweek as required by the FLSA, she asserts. Ms. Thompson worked for Defendants as a non-exempt "Patient Care Coordinator" from February 2017 through December 2019. Caregivers provide senior home care, assisted living and skilled nursing in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties. First Choice is a financial services company based in Melbourne, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A. 533 Versailles Dr., 2nd Floor Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney CAREONE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Modise et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- MOTLALEPULA MODISE; TIRELO MMOLAWA; MORWESI MMOLAWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAREONE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; and ABEL N. OSAGIE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00765 (D. Conn., June 2, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employees. CareOne Health Services LLC is a provider of Non-Medical Home Care in Danbury, Connecticut with services in Companionship, Personal Care and Homemaking. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com CARRINGTON COLLEGE: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Jones Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIJAH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARRINGTON COLLEGE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00989-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all people, who paid tuition and fees for the 2019-2020 Academic Year at Carrington, and who, because of the Defendant'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 1, 2020, the Carrington College President Mitch Charles, announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, neither students nor staff are allowed on campus until further notice, and that all classes will now be shifted to online instruction. As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Mr. Jones and the putative class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online learning options being offered to Carrington students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty. The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student at Carrington's Sacramento campus studying to be a dental assistant. The Plaintiff contends that he paid approximately $4,000 in tuition and fees to the Defendant for the Spring 2020 Session. He has not been provided a refund of any tuition or fee monies paid, despite the fact that in-person classes have not been held since March 1, 2020. Carrington is a network of for-profit private colleges, with a total enrollment of over 6,000 students across eighteen campuses located in Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com breed@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com CAVALRY PORTOFOLIO: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-61048-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com CEDAR SHAKES: Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation -------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaints in IN RE CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to, ALL CLASS ACTIONS, Case No. C19-288 MJP, (W.D. Wash.). Liebo v. CSSB, et al. (C19-228MJP) was filed later in February 2019; followed by Fraser Construction Co., Inc. v. CSSB, et al. (C19-451MJP) in March 2019; Bradow v. CSSB, et al. (C19-577) in April 2019; and the transfer of a New York case, ZRD Group LLC v. CSSB, et al. (C19-784MJP) in May 2019. Eventually all the class actions were consolidated under a single case number (C19-288MJP) as In re Cedar Shakes and Shingles Antitrust Litigation. The Court now addresses motions to dismiss in three class action lawsuits in the consolidated Cedar Shakes Antitrust Litigation. The three categories of class action plaintiffs are the Direct Purchaser ("DP"), Reseller ("RS") and End User ("EU") Plaintiffs. The complaints at issue are the Second Amended Complaints ("SACs") of all three classes. They allege (via claims of a price-fixing conspiracy) violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1), various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment against a number of "Manufacturer Defendants" (including movants herein the Waldun Defendants, Anbrook Industries and G&R Cedar) as well as a trade association known as the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau ("CSSB"). The Court notes that none of the facts upon which Plaintiffs rely to create their "plausible inference" of a price-fixing conspiracy -- Walker's pressuring comments, the expulsion of the certain (unnamed) CSSB members, the numerous opportunities these Defendants had to meet, the various bylaw revisions -- can be said to constitute facts which, if true, prove the existence of a contract, combination, or agreement to restrain trade (beyond Plaintiffs' conclusory comments that they were all in furtherance of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy). The Court adds that the final nail in the coffin of Plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead a "direct evidence" case of price-fixing is that, despite the numerous allegations regarding Curtis Walker (or at times possibly Brooke Meyer) pressuring other businesses to raise prices or keep prices up and Plaintiffs' conclusory claims that member companies were expelled for failure to "fall in line," there is not a single allegation in any of the complaints that anyone actually raised their prices in response to the alleged activity; i.e., no evidence of any agreement. On the issue of the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleadings to adequately allege a circumstantial price-fixing conspiracy case, it is the finding of the Court that, while their "parallel conduct" allegations do not disqualify them, they have not succeeded in adequately alleging the "plus" factors required to convert indirect evidence into a satisfactory antitrust complaint. Plaintiffs have requested that, should the Court be inclined to grant Defendants' motion, they be granted leave to amend their complaints. The Court is however convinced, upon de novo review, that further amendment of these complaints would be futile. Plaintiffs have been unable to muster any more than the most tenuous of allegations in their attempt to establish a conspiracy on the part of these Defendants. The deficiencies in their pleadings are not legal, they are factual, and Plaintiffs have done nothing to convince the Court that somehow there are more facts at their disposal which might somehow transform their conclusory pleadings into a legally sufficient statement of a claim. Plaintiffs' SACs fail to adequately claim state a Sherman Act price-fixing conspiracy claim, by means of either direct or indirect evidence, for which relief may be granted, the Court opines. The Court finds that further amendment would not remedy the deficiencies in Plaintiffs' pleadings, and on that basis, orders dismissal with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Specifically, the Court orders that: -- the Waldun Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; Defendants Waldun Forest Products, Ltd. and Waldun Forest Products Partnership are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction; -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaints (and the ancillary motions to dismiss of the Waldun Defendants, G&R Cedar Ltd. and Anbrook Industries Ltd.) are GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims against them are DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. The Court further declines, pursuant to 28 USC Section 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 20, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/tufxwjh from Leagle.com Jack L Liebo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne T. Regan - aregan@hjlawfirm.com - HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, pro hac vice, Arielle S. Wagner - aswagner@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Brian D. Clark -bdclark@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Elizabeth R. Odette - erodette@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kailey C. Mrosak - kcmrosak@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Mark Adam Griffin - mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Nathan D. Prosser -nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC, pro hac vice, Raymond J. Farrow - rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK, W. Joseph Bruckner - wjbruckner@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice & Karin Bornstein Swope - kswope@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK LLP. Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessica Walder - walderj@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC, Larry Steven Gangnes -gangnesl@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC, Devon John McCurdy -mccurdyd@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley -bradleyh@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC, Joseph D. Adamson - adamsonj@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC & Ryan P. McBride - mcbrider@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL PC. Waldun Forest Products Ltd, a British Columbia corporation, Defendant, represented by Claire H. Taylor - claire.taylor@stokeslaw.com - STOKES LAWRENCE PS & Mathew L. Harrington -mathew.harrington@stokeslaw.com - STOKES LAWRENCE. Anbrook Industries Ltd, a British Columbia corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Simson Weinstein - eweinstein@yarmuth.com - YARMUTH LLP & Molly A. Terwilliger - mterwilliger@yarmuth.com - YARMUTH LLP. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Harvey Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Cynthia Harvey v. Centene Management Company LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00012-SMJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Spokane. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies are seeking class certification. On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Harvey v. Centene Management Company LLC, et al., Case No. 20-35468, 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 June 25, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 27, 2020; -- Appellant Cynthia Harvey opening brief is due on September 4, 2020; -- Appellees Centene Management Company LLC and Coordinated Care Corporation's answering brief is due on October 5, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CYNTHIA HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Email: eadams@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 Email: rsg@classcounsel.com - and - Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com - and - James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 391-2487 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 Email: jrn@classcounsel.com Defendants-Appellees CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC and COORDINATED CARE CORPORATION are represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. J. Scott Pritchard, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Email: maren.norton@stoel.com scott.pritchard@stoel.com - and - Steven M. Cady, Esq. Brendan Vincent Sullivan, Jr., Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5321 Email: scady@wc.com bsullivan@wc.com CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES: Doughty Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Laura Doughty, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, Norman City of Oklahoma, a municipal corporation, Case No. CJ-20-00451, was removed from Oklahoma District Court, Cleveland County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on May 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00500-G to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. CentralSquare develops application software and provides technology solutions that help over 7,500 public sector agencies deliver vital safety and administrative services to 3 out of every 4 residents of the U.S. and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cedric C. M. Bond, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHEERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: ccmb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq. Jordyn L. Cartmell, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 232-4633 Fax: (405) 232-3462 Email: amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com jordyneckert@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com - and - Rickey J Knighton, II, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P O Box 370 Norman, OK 73070 Phone: (405) 217-7700 Fax: (405) 366-5425 Email: Rick.Knighton@ci.norman.ok.us CHARTWELL AURORA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Death -------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that one of Canada's largest senior living companies has been hit with a class-action lawsuit by the family of an elderly Ontario woman who died of COVID-19 at one of its facilities, claiming it failed to properly respond to the pandemic and caused "preventable deaths and unnecessary suffering," according to the firm behind the suit. Teresa Pugliese died on April 26 at age 86 after contracting the virus at the Chartwell Aurora Long-Term Care Residence, according to a 33-page lawsuit filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on May 11. "We're all broken hearted, because she was a great mom, a great mother-in-law, a beautiful grandmother," Pugliese's daughter-in-law, Lina, told CBC News. "She went through a lot of struggles in her life like a lot of other mothers, I'm sure . . . These long-term care, old age homes had ample time to get themselves prepared. We could have avoided a lot of people dying if they had taken the proper steps and the proper protocol." Chartwell operates some 200 seniors' facilities across Canada, ranging from independent living to assisted living settings to long-term care homes. The focus of the class action is the company's 27 Ontario long-term care centres. The suit is on behalf of anyone who lived at a Chartwell long-term care home from Jan.10 onward. It has yet to be certified and its claims have not been tested in court. The company has offered its "sincere sympathies" and says it will respond to the suit when it's served. 'Saint Teresa' Raised in Italy, Pugliese was just five when her mother died. Being the only daughter in her family, she was sent to live at an institution with nuns until the age of 11. After that, she returned to her hometown, where she worked as a housekeeper, before getting married at 18. She arrived in Canada with her five children in 1967, one year after her husband, whom she now leaves behind. Her kindness and caring spirit came to define her, her family said -- so much so, that many who knew her called her "Saint Teresa." Pugliese had moved into the home in August 2019 after she was diagnosed with dementia. It was recommended she stay at a long-term care facility because of safety concerns, the lawsuit says. She was placed in a third-floor room with three other roommates and a shared bathroom. The last time her family saw her, on March 8, they say she was in good health. But as the virus took hold in Ontario, the home moved to restrict visitors on March 14. Infected residents not isolated, suit alleges Then came the news no family member of a loved one inside the home wanted to hear: On April 10, Chartwell Aurora had its first case of COVID-19. Albino Pugliese was told about a day later that his mother tested positive for the disease. A few days later, he learned there were nine other positive cases, all on the same floor as his mother. The lawsuit claims Chartwell Aurora failed to isolate Pugliese after she was confirmed to have the virus, and that she was never taken to hospital for treatment. "In fact, Teresa was permitted to walk freely throughout the facility, interacting with other residents, and other residents were similarly allowed to walk freely and interact with her prior to her testing positive for the COVID-19 virus," the suit says. Meanwhile, the virus was spreading. By April 24, Pugliese's son learned there were 28 residents infected, all on his mother's floor, three who died, and at least four staff members were also confirmed to have the virus. All the while, Pugliese's son Nick says, the family was told she was doing well. Two days later, the family was told Pugliese's condition had deteriorated and that she was likely in her final hours. The suit says the family was given a chance to see her one last time. But before they could, Pugliese died of COVID-19 related complications, "alone and without any family." "To die like that -- that breaks my heart, to know that I couldn't go and see her. And then to find out she's gone," Nick Pugliese said through tears. "There's so many people like us, and I hope somebody does something about this because this is not fair for the families," he said. "I cannot bring my mother back." 'Every single death in one of our homes is too many' Lawyer Rose Leto of Neinstein LLP, the firm behind the legal action, told CBC News the focus of the suit is on Chartwell's planning and response to the outbreak, including what she called a failure to isolate residents, as well as a lack of personal protective equipment and staff. The goal, she says, is accountability. Several other families with loved ones at Chartwell homes have told stories that reveal "a common thread," Leto said. 'Residents who tested positive were not removed from the shared accommodations and in many cases residents were permitted to use other areas of the home and other facilities despite testing positive," she said. "These families trusted these long-term care facilities to care for their loved ones, and I think their trust is broken." For its part, Chartwell says it is aware of the statement of claim filed by the Pugliese family and "will respond accordingly once it has been served." Class action alleges neglect by nursing home owners Lawsuits over COVID-19 handling in nursing homes raise questions about standard of care "We offer our sincere sympathies to the family of Mrs. Pugliese and are deeply aware of how difficult a time this is for their family, and also all family members and staff at Chartwell Aurora Long Term Care Residence in the fight against COVID-19," the company's vice-president of communications, Sharon Ranalli, said in a statement to CBC News. "Every single death in one of our homes is one too many. We are sorry that in the midst of COVID-19 and its devastating effects on the senior population, most especially those with pre-existing health conditions or weakened immune systems, that we can not avoid the effects of this terrible virus for all of our residents. We extend our sympathy to all families of those directly impacted by this pandemic." Province not committing to public inquiry The deadly toll of COVID-19 on Canada's nursing homes has given rise to a growing number of proposed class-action lawsuits with some legal experts saying the cases will turn on what's considered reasonable care during a pandemic. One Toronto law firm has served the provincial government with notice of a proposed class proceeding on behalf of all Ontarians in long-term care homes, alleging failures in overseeing the facilities have resulted in widespread, avoidable illness and death during the pandemic. Another such lawsuit that was launched by two Ontario men whose mothers died from COVID-19 targets Revera, a privately owned nursing home company. None of the cases have been certified as class actions so far and their claims have not been tested in court. Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked on May 12 if he would commit to a public inquiry the province's handling of COVID-19 in the long-term care system. Ford stressed that his government agrees the long-term care system in the province is "broken," but stopped short of agreeing to the sweeping probe. "We're going to review the system," he said. "A system that's been broken for decades. I can promise you one thing, we are going to fix it." [GN] CHURCH & DWIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Devane Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TAMMY DEVANE, MICHELLE BARBATO, PETER BARBATO, AND SHARON MAROLDI, Plaintiffs, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-09899-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The matter stems from Church & Dwight's purportedly false labelling of several of their multivitamins, including L'il Critters Multivitamins, Vitafusion Women's Complete Multivitamins, and Vitafusion Men's Complete Multivitamins. The Defendant is a large Delaware corporation in the business of manufacturing a variety of household items, including the Products. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and consumers who purchased the Products, the Products lacked at least three essential vitamins identified by the FDA as being "necessary for human health." The Plaintiffs are a group of consumers from both New Jersey and Florida. Each Plaintiff purchased the Products relying on marketing and labelling that described the Products as a "complete multivitamin" containing all "essential nutrients." While the Plaintiffs do not rely solely upon the FDA to define or justify their understanding of what a "complete" multivitamin is or what is "essential," the FDA does provide an identifiable baseline of which vitamins should be included for a multivitamin to be "complete." However, despite these representations, the Products do not contain all essential vitamins identified by the FDA, including any vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin and -- in the case of Vitafusion Men's Complete Multivitamin and L'il Critters Gummy Vites Complete Multivitamin -- niacin. On April 15, 2019, Devane filed a Complaint against the Defendant. On June 7, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. In response, the Plaintiffs filed a seven-count Amended Complaint against Defendant asserting claims for breach of express warranty under New Jersey law (Count One), breach of implied warranty under New Jersey law (Count Two), violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") (Count Three), violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Count Four), breach of express warranty under common law (Count Five), breach of implied warranty under common law (Count Six), and injunctive relief (Count Seven). The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 26, 2019. On Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On Sept. 10, 2019, the Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. In a Feb. 28, 2020 Opinion available at https://is.gd/Uux02u at Leagle.com, Judge Martinotti granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is granted with respect to Counts Five, Six, and Seven, and denied with regards to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four. Counts Five and Six of the Amended Complaint assert common law breaches of express and implied warranty, respectively, under unspecified state law. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss assumes both these claims are under Florida law. Moreover, in their moving papers, the Plaintiffs not only fail to dispute this assumption, but also fail to respond to the Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six. Therefore, for purposes of addressing the motion, the Judge assumes the Plaintiffs bring Counts Five and Six under Florida law. If they decide to amend their pleadings, they must make clear whether Counts Five and Six are being asserted under Florida law or the law of some other state(s). The Plaintiffs do not allege they provided the Defendant with pre-suit notice of their breach of express warranty claim. As such, they fail to state a claim for breach of express warranty under Florida law. And, because the Plaintiffs do not allege they purchased the Products directly from the manufacturer or are otherwise in privity with Defendant, they fail to state a breach of implied warranty claim. As for Count Seven, the Defendant contends the Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief. Specifically, it contends the Plaintiffs alleging false advertising may not seek injunctive relief where they have become aware of the allegedly deceptive advertising. The Plaintiffs do not dispute this. At this point, they are aware the Products do not contain all vitamins "essential in human nutrition." Therefore, there is no risk that the Plaintiffs will be misled in the future. TAMMY DEVANE, MICHELLE BARBATO, SHARON MAROLDI & PETER BARBATO, Plaintiffs, represented by TAYLOR CHRISTOPHER BARTLETT -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO, INC., Defendant, represented by ALYCHIA LYNN BUCHAN -- abuchan@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE LLP. CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Hallockshannon Sues Over PPP Loan Agent Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- HALLOCKSHANNON, PC v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORP.; CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK; FNCB BANCORP, INC.; FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY BANK; F.N.B. CORP; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA; HONAT BANCORP; HONESDALE NATIONAL BANK; PEOPLES FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.; and PEOPLES SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-00714-AJS (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendants for failure to pay the required compensation to agents that facilitated the Paycheck Protection Program loan process between lenders and applicants as required by the Small Business Administration Regulations. The SBA Regulations establish limits on Agent Fees. The SBA Regulations and Treasury Guidance determined that the Agent Fees are reasonable given the application requirements and the fees that Lenders receive for making PPP loans. The Defendants received approval from the SBA and funded loans for numerous businesses. However, the Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of the monies owed to the Plaintiff, says the complaint. On January 21, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed the first U.S. case of a new coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that the spread of COVID-19 had become a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Emergency Declaration applicable to the United States, which declared that the pandemic was of "sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all states, territories and the District of Columbia." On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the CARES Act. As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349 billion loan program, referred to as the "Paycheck Protection Program." The PPP provides small businesses with loans to be originated from February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020. HallockShannon is a Pennsylvania professional corporation doing business since May 2016. HallockShannon was formed to help its clients with their accounting and business needs. Citizens & Northern is a subsidiary of Citizens. Citizens Bank is a full-service financial institution. Citizens Bank is headquartered in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, and conducts substantial business within this District. FNCB Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company of First National Community Bank. FNCB is an independent community bank that assists businesses, individuals, and investors in achieving their financial goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett D. Stecker, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 326 W. Lancaster Avenue Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 E-mail: brett@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, P.C. Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone (213) 625-3900 E-mail: mark@geragos.com ben@geragos.com mhoesly@geragos.com - and - Brian Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, No. 102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 E-mail: meadler@graylawinc.com - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com nsingn@dhillionlaw.com CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Marron BIPA Suit Over Usage of Biometric Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Marron and Individual, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Clearview AI, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Hoan Ton-That, an Individual; Richard Schwartz, an Individual; and CDW Government LLC, an Illinois Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02989 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020), is an action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal conduct of the Defendants in collecting, storing, using, selling, and distributing the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without their knowledge or informed written consent, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Clearview has scraped over 3 billion facial images from the internet and scanned the facial images' biometrics. The Company then built a searchable database of the scanned images and biometrics, enabling users to utilize its proprietary facial recognition software to instantly identify an unknown individual with only a photograph. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants have then sold and otherwise given access to their's and Class Members' searchable biometrics to hundreds of law enforcement agencies, private entities, and individuals. In profiting handsomely from their enterprise, The Defendants have taken no steps to comply with any provision of BIPA, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Illinois. Clearview AI is an American technology company that provides facial recognition software, which they claim is marketed primarily for law enforcement agencies. The Individual Defendants are owners, directors and officers if the company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq Nicholas R. Lange, Esq Gary Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com nlange@carlsonlynch.com glynch@garylynch.com kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and - Richard R. Gordon, Esq. GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD. 111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 332-5200 E-mail: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com CLEARVIEW AI: Thornley Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Melissa Thornley, Deborah Benjamin-Koller, and Josue Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clearview AI, Inc., Case No. 2020CH03377, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on May 15, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02916 to the proceeding. The lawsuit demands $75,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan H. Lefkow. Clearview AI is an American technology company that provides facial recognition software, which they claim is marketed primarily for law enforcement agencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Martin Feeney, Esq. MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 263-3700 E-mail: dfeeney@millershakman.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Lichtman, Esq. David Prescott Saunders, Esq. Howard Steven Suskin, Esq. Lee Wolosky, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 891-1644 E-mail: ALichtman@jenner.com dsaunders@jenner.com hsuskin@jenner.com lwolosky@jenner.com CLERMONT YORK: Schneier Sues Over Wrongly Deregulated Apartments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tobi Rubinstein Schneier, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CLERMONT YORK ASSOCIATES LLC, Case No. 705937/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., May 28, 2020), arises from issues on rent stabilized apartments, which were improperly deregulated. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of opt out members of the existing class action in the New York action known as Gerard v. Clermont York Associates LLC, where attorneys for both sides presented a settlement agreement to the Court, which was approved in May 2019, following the decision of Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props. L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270 (2009), on rent stabilized apartments improperly deregulated while the landlord was receiving J-51 benefits, with notices having been sent to the class members to either opt in or out before March 27, 2020. The Plaintiff, a former tenant of the property at 444 East 82nd Street, Apt. 10F, in New York City, on a vacancy lease from December 1, 2010, through April 30, 2018, with her last rent charged at $ 4,545 per month. This property consists of 34 stories and contains approximately 415 rental units; it was built in 1966 and, therefore, upon passing of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 virtually all apartments became subject of the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code. On July 1, 1997, and continuing through at least December 31, 2010, the Defendant began to receive and continue to receive real estate benefits pursuant to N.Y.C.'s J-51 program. Despite the receipt of J-51 benefits beginning in 1997, the Defendant failed to restore previously rent stabilization apartments that had become part of the luxury deregulation, according to the complaint. Upon information and belief stated by the Plaintiffs in the New York County action, approximately 200 apartments had been improperly deregulated under these circumstances. The Plaintiff is a former tenant. Clermont York Associates LLC is the landlord.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Felipe Orner, Esq. 72-29 137th Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 575-9600 COLE HAAN: Adams Sues Over Sham Discounting Scheme -------------------------------------------------- Teresa Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cole Haan, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00913, (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2020), seeks monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws, Business and Professions Code, False Advertising Laws, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. Cole Haan operates outlet stores selling clothing and clothing accessories throughout the United States. Adams accuses Cole Haan of engaging in false reference pricing, fabricating a false "original" price, and then offers an item for sale at a purported "discounted" price. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com CONSUMER PROTECTION: Settlement in Linton Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CRYSTAL LINTON, ET AL. v. CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION, Case No. 33 (Md. App.), the Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the judgment of Court of Special Appeals granting the proposed settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings. The case is a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of 100 individuals who had assigned structured settlement annuity benefits they were entitled to receive from various tortfeasors to petitioner Access Funding, LLC or its affiliates or designee. The lawsuit was filed in July 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and is based on allegations that the assignments were the product of fraud on the part of Access. There were several strains to the claim of fraud, but, most prominently, it was based on evidence of a modus operandi in which (1) most of the assignors were young victims of lead paint poisoning whose ability to understand the economic impact of the assignment was severely limited; (2) those individuals were actively solicited by Access; (3) as a condition to implementing an assignment of structured settlement benefits, Maryland law requires approval of the proposed assignment by a Circuit Court but prohibits a court from approving an assignment unless the assignor has received "independent professional advice regarding the legal, tax, and financial implications of the transfer"; (4) independent professional advice means advice from a licensed professional adviser who is engaged by the assignor and is not affiliated with or compensated by the assignee; (5) most of the assignments at issue involved an Access agent posing as an independent professional adviser who gave no (or wholly inadequate) independent advice to the assignors; and (6) the amount paid for the assignment of benefits was unconscionably inadequate. In May 2016, two months before the filing of the Linton action, the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General's Office ("CPD"), alleging the same misconduct, had filed an enforcement action under the State Consumer Protection Act, against Access in the same court. CPD's Complaint alleged that, in soliciting and consummating the assignments, Access engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of CL Section 13-303. Six months after the Linton action was filed, the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), chartered by Congress to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, filed a similar action against the same defendants, for the same misconduct and seeking essentially the same relief, in the U.S. District Court -- CFPB v. Access Funding, No. 1:16-cv-03759-ELH (D.Md.). Although all three actions seek similar kinds of relief with respect to the victims -- compensation for their losses due to the fraudulent activities of the defendants -- the bases for seeking that form of relief and the nature and amount of relief sought are not entirely the same. The Linton action is founded on Maryland common law causes of action for civil damages; the CPD and CFPB actions are based on Maryland or Federal consumer protection statutes that permit the recovery of restitution and the disgorgement of funds received by the defendants through their statutory misconduct. They are not common law actions personal to the individual plaintiffs. On March 28, 2017, while the CPD and CFPB actions still were pending, the parties in the Linton action filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The settlement class was to consist of all individuals who, between Jan. 1, 2012 and July 6, 2016, transferred structured settlement payment rights obtained in settlement of a personal injury claim to Access. It was estimated that there were 100 such individuals. The total gross payout by Access, taken entirely from indemnity insurance policies, would be $1.1 million, of which $330,000 would be paid to Class Counsel as attorneys' fees. Of the balance, the Class Administrator would receive "the reasonable costs of class notice and administrative expense and taxes," for which no estimate was then given, and each of the two named Plaintiffs would receive $500 as a service award. Whatever was left would be distributed to the estimated 100 class members on a pro rata basis set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. In April 2017 -- before any hearing on the motion to approve the settlement -- CPD moved to intervene in the Linton action and requested a 180-day stay to permit the CPD action to proceed. Both sides in Linton opposed CPD's motion, challenging some of its factual assertions and its claims of what it would be able to achieve through the CPD action. In June 2017, the court granted CPD's motion to intervene but deferred action on its motion to stay. The court denied the stay. It held that it was unfair to delay a settlement in the Linton action, given the effort that had gone into negotiating it. In its Preliminary Approval Order entered on Sept. 28, 2017, the court approved a form of Notice to which CPD continued to object. That Order also preliminarily certified the settlement class, appointed Crystal Linton and Dimeca Johnson (the named PPlaintiffs) as the class representatives, and set a hearing for the following February to consider final approval. That hearing occurred on Feb. 2, 2018. The court signed the proposed final order on February 9. It was docketed four days later. On Dec. 22, 2017, CPD filed an opposition to the class certification, objections to the proposed settlement, to which it attached materials that had been produced and filed in the CPD action, including its motion for partial summary judgment that asserted that most of the assignments challenged in the case were void ab initio. On Jan. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel applied for an attorneys' award of $330,000. The final order, essentially in the form submitted, was entered on Feb. 13, 2018. It had immediate effect on the CPD action. After approval of the settlement in Linton, the defendants in the CPD action moved for summary judgment, which, six months later, the court granted based on its conclusion that CPD's claim for restitution was barred by res judicata. The court did allow the claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties to proceed. That case, in its very narrow form, is now awaiting trial. The instant appeal was noted on February 22. A second notice and cross appeal were filed on March 8. In an unreported Opinion, over a dissent, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Circuit Court. Addressing a cross-appeal by Access, the Court held that the Circuit Court correctly allowed CPD to intervene in the Linton action and concluded that, overall, the settlement was procedurally fair. It did not rule on whether the settlement was substantively fair. The effective judgment of the Court of Special Appeals was a remand for further proceedings. The ultimate issue before the Appellate Court is whether the Circuit Court erred in certifying a settlement class and approving a settlement reached by the parties with respect to that class. Resolving that issue requires consideration of several sub-issues arising in large part from the fact that there were two other actions pending against Access by Government regulatory agencies for the same alleged misconduct, one by CPD, and one by CFPB. The Appellate Court finds that Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, though not necessarily unlawful, are unenforceable. The parties can agree, if they wish, not to accept any compensation from recoveries by CPD, provided there is an adequate disclosure of the prospect that there may be such recoveries through remedies not sought in the Linton action. With respect to recoveries through disgorgement/restitution, however, they cannot preclude CPD from pursuing such remedies or direct that any such recoveries be handed over to Access or anyone else (other than the settling plaintiffs), which would directly contravene the statutory authority of CPD to sanction Access for its wrongful conduct. That alone requires that the Circuit Court's approval of the Stipulation of Settlement be reversed. The case will have to be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. If settlement is to be pursued, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 10.3, at least in their current form, must be excised, which may affect whether there will be a settlement at all and, if there is to be a settlement, what its terms may be. The fundamental fairness of the current settlement, which is the nub of CPD's cross appeal, is therefore moot. The Notice to members of the settlement class will need to be revised to reflect any new settlement proposal, and, in determining whether to approve any new proposal, the court will need to consider the substantive fairness of the new provisions, including any award of attorneys' fees. If the case reaches that stage, the court will need to consider (1) from evidence, the current financial status of the Defendants, (2) the status of the CPD and CFPB actions, including whether the partial summary judgment entered in the CPD case based on res judicata needs to be reconsidered, and what, if anything, the disgorgement/restitution remedies or constructive trusts that may be sought in that case are likely to produce, and (3) whether, by participating in the litigation of this case for three-and-a-half years, most of which was taken up negotiating and defending a settlement of the litigation, Access has waived any right it may have had to arbitration. Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court concluded, as did the Court of Special Appeals, that the Circuit Court erred in approving the proposed settlement. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of Court of Special Appeals, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and for further proceedings in accordance with the Appellate Court's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/qMSvZC from Leagle.com. CORECIVIC INC: Immigration Detainees' Suit Underway in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees. On May 31, 2017, two former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees at all CoreCivic ICE detention facilities. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees at the Company's ICE detention facilities in California. The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Since this case was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed in other courts in California, Texas and Georgia. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself against all claims. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits. CoreCivic said, "However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on CoreCivic's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with the scale and experience needed to solve tough government challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee. COURIERNET INC: Gobena Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA & NCWHA ---------------------------------------------------------------- WAGAYE GOBENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COURIERNET, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-290 (W.D.N.C., May 22, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a systemic company-wide policy, pattern, or practice of misclassifying its employees as exempt from the FLSA, willfully failing to compensate employees for all hours worked, willfully failing to compensate employees at the appropriate overtime rate for overtime hours worked, and violating statutory recordkeeping provisions. The Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher and courier for the Defendant in its Morrisville and Cary, North Carolina offices from July 2016 until January 2020. According to its Web site, the Defendant is a courier company specializing in on-demand deliveries, pharmaceutical/medical specimen transportation, and customizing distribution networks for customers across many industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte C. Smith, Esq. Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed in Zurakov ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT BUREAU COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., d/b/a CBCS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00830-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lyn Adelman granted Plaintiff's request to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. The plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. Credit Bureau, doing business as CBCS, provides collection and management services.[CC] DAIRY FARMERS: 2nd Cir. Upholds $110K Attorneys Fees in Allen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALICE H. ALLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, DBA AL-LENS FARMS, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, DBA AL-LENS FARMS, JONATHAN HAAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, CLAUDIA HAAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, PETER SOUTHWAY, MARILYN SOUTHWAY, REYNARD HUNT, ROBERT FULPER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, VINCE NEVILLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, DONNA HALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, RICHARD SWANTAK, Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN H. TAYLOR, DARREL J. AUBERTINE, Intervenors-Appellants, RICHARD THOMAS CASSIDY, DANIEL SMITH, Appellants, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., DAIRY MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, DEAN FOODS COMPANY, HP HOOD LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-179 (2d Cr.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's December 2018 award of $110,000 in attorneys' fees, which was later modified by a March 2019 order. Appellants Richard T. Cassidy and Daniel Smith, attorneys who were appointed as additional class counsel in the antitrust class action, appeal the district court's December 2018 award of $110,000 in attorneys' fees, which was later modified by a March 2019 order. Courts have used two methods to calculate attorneys' fees: the lodestar method and the percentage-of-recovery method. Whatever method is used, the reasonableness of a common fund fee award is governed by the so-called Goldberger factors: (1) counsel's time and labor; (2) the litigation's complexities and magnitude; (3) the litigation risks; (4) quality of representation; (5) the relationship of the requested fee to the settlement; and (6) considerations of public policy. The Appellants argue that the lodestar method should have been used only as a "cross-check" on their claimed percentage of the settlement award, and that the minimal records they submitted were adequate for this purpose. That argument misunderstands the Second Circuit's precedent. It is up to the district court, rather than the counsel, to choose whether to use the lodestar or percentage methods. Goldberger stated that district courts are encouraged to use the lodestar as a "cross-check" in cases in which they award fees based on a percentage of the settlement award in order to avoid a windfall for the class counsel. In that situation, the counsel's time records need not be as detailed as in a lodestar-only method. However, the Second Circuit has held that it is within a district court's discretion to use the lodestar method alone, as the district court did in the case. The Appellants also argue that the district court erroneously reduced their lodestar to 366 hours. However, it was not an abuse of discretion given that Smith and Cassidy did not submit time records and included non-compensable work in their lodestar calculations. It was within the district court's discretion to reduce the claimed number of hours based on what it considered to be reasonable, especially given the lack of time records. The Appellants' next argument that they were not compensated for their settlement work fails because the district court explicitly included this category of work in its lodestar amount. And their argument that they should have been awarded fees for their work during the 2016 attorneys' fee litigation and appeal is meritless. The Second Circuit has held that attorneys are not entitled to compensation for time spent on fee litigation in common fund cases, the rationale being that the fund, created for the benefit of a group or class, which already has been diminished by an award of fees, should not be further diminished by an additional award for work performed in fee applications. Finally, the Appellants argue that the district court failed to consider the reasonableness of its award and misapplied the Goldberger factors, in particular, their contributions to the settlement. The district court acknowledged the contributions the Appellants made to the settlement process and did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees, reasoning that Appellants' role in the settlement process was limited because they were appointed late in that process. In the case, the district court had already awarded a total of $7 million in attorneys' fees for the various lawyers who had worked on the case. The law firms who had participated in the case, with the exception of Appellants Cassidy and Smith, had agreed on a plan of distribution of that award as among themselves. The remaining issue before the district court, and now before the Second Circuit, was what portion of the award should go to them. Jonathan and Claudia Haar, the class representatives who previously unsuccessfully appealed the settlement, also filed a pro se Appellees' brief in the appeal, although they did not participate in the attorneys' fee litigation in district court and did not appeal the fee award order. The Haars' failure to appeal the district court's order precludes them from challenging it in the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit has considered the remainder of the Appellants' arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed, the Second Circuit rules. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Feb. 28, 2020 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/GAgU39 from Leagle.com. Circuit Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Gerard E. Lynch, and Steven J. Menashi concurred on the Second Circuit ruling. Daniel Smith (Richard T. Cassidy -- rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com -- on the brief), South Burlington, VT, Appearing for Appellants. Danyll W. Foix -- dfoix@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, (Gregory J. Commins, Jr. -- gcommins@bakerlaw.com -- on the brief), Washington, D.C, Appearing for Appellees. Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, (Kit A. Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- on the brief), Washington, D.C, Appearing for Appellees. Jonathan Haar, pro se, W. Edmeston, N.Y, Appearing for Appellees Claudia and Jonathan Haar, Appearing for Appellees. DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Fox Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FOX, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAMCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC. a/k/a DAMCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation; WILLIAM PERATT, an individual; JOBSOURCE MIRA LOMA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV13494 (Filed April 6, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04543 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to to pay overtime wages and minimum wages and failed to compensate for all hours worked under California Labor Code. Damco provides logistics services. The Company offers port drayage and yard management, transloading, cross-docking, bypass, deconsolidation and domestic distribution, automated sortation systems, bar code scanning, and warehousing.[BN] Defendant Damco is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com DARE COUNTY, NC: COVID Ban Violates Constitution, Blackburn Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph E. Blackburn, Jr. and wife, Linda C. Blackburn, and all similarly situated individuals v. Dare County, the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head, and Manteo, Case No. 2:20-cv-00027-FL (E.D.N.C., May 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for allegedly taking of private property in violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs contend that they and other similarly situated non-resident property owners have suffered damage by the temporary complete taking of their property as they have lost the fair market rental value and value of use of property by governmental regulations for 45 days. On March 16, 2020, Dare County declared a state of emergency due to unprecedented public health posed by COVID-19 as it has a right to do. On that same day, the Defendants, through the Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, imposed an additional restriction prohibiting the entry of all non-resident property owners into Dare County and made the entry of non-resident property owners a Class II misdemeanor. The Plaintiffs are non-resident owners of real property in Dare County, North Carolina. Dare County, is a body politic, created, and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. The Defendants, Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head and Manteo, are bodies politic, created, and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd C. Smith, Jr. PRITCHETT & BURCH, PLLC Post Office Drawer 100 Windsor, NC 27983 Telephone: (252)794-3161 E-mail: lsmith@pb-attorneys.com DENNY'S INC: Underpays Staff, Deleon Claims --------------------------------------------- MYRA DELEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENNY'S INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV20769 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff DeLeon was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. Denny's Inc. is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain. It operates over 1,700 restaurants in the United States, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, The Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Honduras, New Zealand, Qatar, Philippines, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Curacao, and the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Edward Kim, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net ekim@mahoney-law.net DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Certifies Hawaii Class in Gonzalez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DANIEL GONZALEZ and JEFFREY HUGHES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00979-APG-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i) denied West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P. ("WMRP")'s motion to strike, and (ii) granted Gonzalez's motion to certify class. Plaintiffs Gonzalez and Hughes sued Defendants Diamond Resorts and West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P. (WMRP) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of themselves and similarly situated vacation counselors, also known as sales representatives. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the FLSA by computing overtime based on the relevant state's minimum wage rather than on the vacation counselors' regular rate of pay, which they contend includes bonuses and commissions. Gonzalez, who worked as a vacation counselor for WMRP in Hawaii, also seeks to represent a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for current and former vacation counselors who worked for WMRP in Hawaii at any time since May 29, 2012. He contends these same allegations amount to overtime violations under Hawaii law. Gonzalez now moves for certification of the Hawaii class action and requests that he be named the class representative and his counsel be named class counsel. He also requests that the Defendants be required to provide him with the names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of all Hawaii class members within 10 days, and for notice to be sent to the class members. WMRP responds that Gonzalez has not met his burden of showing class treatment is appropriate because he rests his motion on his own declaration, but he worked at only one resort in Hawaii and thus does not have personal knowledge to show numerosity, commonality, or typicality with vacation counselors at the other two Hawaii resorts. It also moves to strike Gonzalez's reply, arguing it contains new evidence and raises new arguments. Judge Gordon finds that Gonzalez has shown he meets the requirements in Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The Judge therefore granted Gonzalez's motion to certify the following Rule 23 class: All non-exempt Sales Representatives and Vacation Counselors who worked on-site at one or more of defendant West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P.'s resorts (and/or affiliated resorts), in the state of Hawaii at any time since May 29, 2012. Judge Gordon also appoints Gonzalez's counsel as the class counsel. Additionally, because WMRP did not oppose the request, the Judge directed WMRP to provide Gonzalez's counsel with the names, address, email addresses, and phone numbers of putative class members within 10 days of the Order. The parties must confer prior to Gonzalez submitting a proposed notice to send to the class. The proposed notice must be submitted to the court within 30 days from the date of the Order. If the parties cannot agree on the form, they each will submit a proposed form and briefly explain why their suggested language is appropriate. WMRP argues that even if a class is certified, notice should not be sent to employees who have signed arbitration agreements that contain class-action waivers or who have released claims covered by the action. Gonzalez responds that whether the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable is a merits or decertification question that is not suitable for resolution at this stage of the proceedings. Gonzalez also notes that WMRP presents no evidence to support its assertion that it has obtained releases from some employees and he questions the timing and circumstances under which any releases were obtained. Judge Gordon holds that the Notice in the case has already been delayed due to the Court's heavy docket. To delay notice further so the parties can conduct discovery on arbitration agreements and releases for individuals who are not yet parties to the case, then file new motions to determine whether the agreements are valid without the participation of those parties, and then factor in the time it would take for this court to address the motions, another year or more could pass without even the first notice going out. That is neither practical nor efficient. The Judge declined to evaluate at this time the enforceability of the arbitration agreements or the alleged release of claims. But the Judge required Gonzalez to include in the notice language that discusses how the arbitration agreement and release of claims may potentially affect class Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 1, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/CMwy1u from Leagle.com. EAGLE LAND: Evans Seeks OT Pay for Title Abstractors Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- KIERAN EVANS, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. EAGLE LAND SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00131 (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Evans worked for ELS as a Title Abstractor from December 2017 until April 2018. Evans and the other similarly situated workers, who worked for ELS in the last three years, regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But these workers never received overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint. Eagle Land provides a complete range of land services supporting urban and rural energy development and right of way acquisition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com EARTH CARE: Castillo Suit Seeks OT Pay for Landscapers Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. EARTH CARE LANDSCAPING, INC. and EUGENIA BELCHER, Case No. 1:20-cv-02110-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 on behalf of all current or former landscapers against the Defendants for allegedly failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants in March 2019. He worked as a landscaper. Earth Care is a landscape contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: 678 780 4880 Facsimile: 478 575 2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Hunter Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA HUNTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, JEFFREY N. SIMMONS, and TODD S. YOUNG, Case No. 1:20-cv-01460-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., May 20, 2020), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Elanco securities between January 10, 2020, and May 6, 2020, inclusive. On May 7, 2020, before the market opened, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting "a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory." The Company's Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to "distributor performance," among other things, and stated that Elanco planned "to tighten its approach across many facets of its distributor relationships." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.05, or over 13%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, she and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased Elanco securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Elanco is an animal health company that develops, manufactures, and markets products for companion and food animals. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company, who possessed the power and authority to control the contents of the Company's reports to the SEC, press releases and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers and institutional investors, i.e., the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Offer Korin, Esq. KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM The Emelie Building 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 464-1100 Facsimile: (317) 464-1111 E-mail: okorin@kkclegal.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 EMBRY RIDDLE: Rhodes Sues to Seek Prorated Reimbursement of Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Rhodes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EMBRY RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00927-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., May 28, 2020), is brought to seek a proper, prorated refund or reimbursement for the unused services for which the Plaintiff and others paid in the form of various university fees. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class (i) did not receive their bargained-for educational and other services and experiences, for which they paid; and (ii) have not been refunded a properly prorated portion of their tuition and fees after Embry-Riddle abruptly ceased providing such services to students during the spring of 2020 due to the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"). As a result of the Defendant's wrongful acts and unfair business practices alleged herein, Mr. Rhodes says he and the Class have systematically been denied, and therefore seek: (i) a proper, prorated refund or reimbursement for the unused services for which they paid in the form of various university fees; and (ii) a proper, prorated refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the education they received as a result of classes transitioning from in-person/on-campus instruction to an entirely remote, virtual learning format. Mr. Rhodes is an undergraduate student studying aeronautics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The Defendant owns and operates Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq. Brenton J. Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone 850-435-7059 Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com rtimmons@levinlaw.com bgoodman@levinlaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net EXPRESSJET AIRLINES: Bothwell Sues to Recover Denied Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Grace Erica Bothwell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Expressjet Airlines, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00470 (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2020), seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. Bothwell was formerly employed by ExpressJet as a flight attendant. ExpressJet operates as United Express. Bothwell claims to be denied medically-necessary leaves pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, retirement benefits election notices pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 upon termination of employment, and earned and/or vested vacation time, including funds paid toward flex vacation time. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com FAT BRANDS: Dec. 29 Fact Discovery Cut-Off Set in Vignola Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the court in Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., set various deadlines for the case, including a fact discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020, expert discovery cut-off of February 23, 2021 and trial date of March 30, 2021. On August 24, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs’ motion on November 16, 2018. On January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against the Original Defendants. The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola are substantively identical to those asserted in the Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action In Favor of a Prior Pending Action. On June 14, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay but granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint, with Leave to Amend. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on August 5, 2019. On September 9, 2019, Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Part, Without Leave to Amend. The allegations remaining in Vignola are substantively identical to those remaining in the Rojany Case. Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on January 14, 2020. On December 27, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. By order entered March 16, 2020, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. By order entered April 1, 2020, the Court set various deadlines for the case, including a fact discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020, expert discovery cut-off of February 23, 2021 and trial date of March 30, 2021. Defendants dispute Lead Plaintiffs' allegations and will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this litigation FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FAT BRANDS: Rojany Class Cert. Hearing Set for Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------- FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., is set for September 10, 2020. On June 7, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. BC708539 (the "Rojany Case"), in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 31, 2018, the Rojany Case was designated as complex, pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, and assigned the matter to the Complex Litigation Program. On August 2, 2018, the Original Defendants were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit, Alden v. FAT Brands, Case No. BC716017 (the "Alden Case"), filed in the same court. On September 17, 2018, the Rojany and Alden Cases were consolidated under the Rojany Case number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin ("Plaintiffs") filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants. On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint with Leave to Amend in Part. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on February 25, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint in Part, narrowing the scope of the case. Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on November 12, 2019. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed, and the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is set for September 10, 2020. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this litigation. FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FCA US: Conceals Engine Defects to Buyers, Gizzarelli et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, NICK GIZZARELLI, CATHERINE COPPINGER, ROSALIND BURKS, and KELLIE MCMULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11442-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's fraudulent concealment and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act, the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and state Consumer Protection Acts. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or leased any vehicle manufactured and sold by the Defendant and equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II Engine, allege that the Defendant failed to disclose to its consumers that the Class vehicles contain a significant design and/or manufacturing defect in their engines that causes them to improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The oil consumption defect causes the Class vehicles to shut down during the course of their normal operation, placing the occupants and surrounding vehicles at an increased risk of serious injury and even death. Class vehicles' oil indicator system does not alert drivers that their engine oil was running low, which means that drivers only become aware of a dangerously low engine-oil level after it causes an engine stall or shut-down, putting their lives at risk. FCA has long known about the oil consumption and oil indicator defects, as hundreds of Class vehicle owners and lessees have reported instances of their vehicles shutting down without warning due to low oil levels and/or pressure. Yet rather than being honest about these problems, FCA has engaged in efforts to conceal them by describing the defects as normal in a technical service bulletin. Had FCA disclosed the defects or the fact that FCA would refuse to repair the defects, including repair costs, the Plaintiffs and Class members would have received these disclosures, and they would not have purchased the Class vehicles or would have paid less for them. FCA US LLC is a company that is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States. It is headquartered at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and – Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com - and – E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. Miller Building 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@miller.law - and – Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com FEDERAL INSURANCE: Production of Docs #12 Compelled in Abramson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEWART ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and BAY AREA HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-2523-T-60AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted in part and denied in part Mr. Abraham's motion to compel Bay Area Health to produce documents responsive to request for production nos. 4, 5, 10, 12, and 14. Mr. Abraham [sic] brought the class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The TCPA bars calls to cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Mr. Abraham alleges that Federal Insurance, acting under an agreement with Bay Area Health, commissioned automated telemarketing cold calls to consumers who did not consent, including Mr. Abraham. Mr. Abraham seeks to compel the production of documents pertaining to: (1) Bay Area's training materials and policies about compliance with the TCPA (request for production nos. 4 and 5), and (2) prior TCPA complaints and lawsuits (request for production nos. 10, 12, 14). In response, Bay Area Health contends these documents either do not exist or are irrelevant to Mr. Abraham's claims. The requests for production at issue are: a. Request for Production No. 4: Please produce all documents relating to telemarketing training provided to your employees or vendors. b. Request for Production No. 5: Please produce all documents related to policies for compliance with the TCPA or the FCC's regulations thereunder and all documents necessary to construct a timeline of when each policy was in force. c. Request for Production No. 10: Please produce all documents relating to your failure, alleged failure, or possible failure by you, or any vendor, to comply with your policies related to telemarketing. d. Request for Production No. 12: Please produce all documents relating to complaints or do-not-call requests concerning telemarketing, including, but not limited to, lists or databases containing complaints and metadata about them, and information identifying the complainants. This request includes any complaints to you by mail, email, live call, IVR, SMS, web form, social media, FCC, FTC, CFPB, state attorney general, BBB or any other source. e. Request for Production No. 14: Please produce all documents necessary to identify all TCPA lawsuits filed against you. Bay Area Health objects to the Requests to the extent that: (i) it is vague and ambiguous; (ii) it is not limited to a time period relevant to the events at issue in this matter; (iii) it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing; and (iv) it seeks confidential, proprietary, business information that belongs to Defendant. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this action, and not intended to lead the discovery of material relevant to the claims or defenses in the action. Judge Sansone granted in part and denied in part Mr. Abraham's Motion to Compel. The Judge granted the motion as to request for production no. 12 and denied otherwise. Among other things, Judge Sansone finds that the request for production no. 12 more specifically requests information relating to prior complaints and do-not-call requests. The information is sufficiently relevant to whether Bay Area Health complied with the TCPA and had consent to contact Mr. Abraham, and any other potential class members. Christopher Pine, Bay Area Health's president, declared that after a diligent search, Bay Area Health could not locate any documents evidencing written telemarketing training material or policies for compliance with the TCPA or FCC's telemarketing regulations. While these policies are relevant to Mr. Abraham's claim, Mr. Pine claims they do not exist. Thus, the motion to compel as to request for production nos. 4 and 5 is denied. Bay Area Health, however, must amend its written responses to requests for production nos. 4 and 5 to conform to the declaration provided in response to Mr. Abraham's. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 1, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/wyPBIJ from Leagle.com. FERROGLOBE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Treankler Consolidated Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ferroglobe PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit initiated by Lance Treankler, is still pending. On January 22, 2019, a claimed shareholder plaintiff, Lance Treankler, filed a putative class action complaint against Ferroglobe PLC, former CEO Pedro Larrea and former CFO Phillip Murnane in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in Manhattan, seeking money damages for alleged violations of U.S. securities laws. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that certain of the Company's public disclosures prior to its November 26, 2018 third quarter earnings press release were materially false or misleading when made and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On March 19, 2019, another claimed shareholder plaintiff, Jam-Wood Holdings LLC, filed a substantially identical complaint in the same court, which was consolidated with the Treankler action, with Mr. Treankler serving as lead plaintiff. In September 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action for failure to state a valid claim. The motion is fully briefed and a decision is pending. Ferroglobe PLC operates in the silicon and specialty metals industry in the United States, Europe, and internationally. The company was formerly known as VeloNewco Limited and changed its name to Ferroglobe PLC in December 2015. The company was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. Ferroglobe PLC is a subsidiary of Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U. FIRST CHINESE: Guzman Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ALVARO RAMIREZ GUZMAN, ELIDA AGUSTINA MEJIA HERRERA and LETICIA PANAMA RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. THE FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION, Case No. 0157401/2016 (Filed Sept. 2, 2016), was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 20, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03929 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs have sought to recover wages and benefits allegedly owed under New York law, individually and on behalf of a putative class of individuals, who are all members of a union, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. First Chinese is a a home health agency in New York City.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Douglas J. Klein, Esq. Christopher M. Repole, Esq. Ryan C. Chapoteau, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, Floor 29 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4000 FMA ALLIANCE: Preisler Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMA Alliance, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-61046-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FMA Alliance, Ltd. (FMA) is a privately-owned receivables management company originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com FOREST RIVER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees v. FOREST RIVER MANUFACTURING, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19612 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the Labor Code based on their failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods; and failure to provide a temperature providing reasonable comfort. The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees are current, former and/or future employees of the Defendants, who worked, work, or will work for the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees in California. Forest River is a U.S. manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberrv@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-Mail: sahagii@aol.com FRANKLIN CREDIT: Merhaut Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Credit Management Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Frank T. Merhaut, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03165 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Franklin Credit Management Corporation is a specialty mortgage servicer engaged in the servicing and resolution of nonperforming residential mortgage loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq. Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Staley Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STALEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are: (1) individuals who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for certain HIV medications and (2) health and welfare trust funds/plans that purchased or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for certain HIV medications. The Plaintiffs have filed suit against companies that are the new drug application holders for, or otherwise manufacture, sell, and/or distribute, those HIV medications, namely: (1) Gilead; (2) Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); (3) Japan Tobacco; and (4) Janssen. The operative complaint is the corrected consolidated class action complaint ("CAC"). The bulk of the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants are antitrust claims, both federal and state (Counts 1-6 and 8-13). The Plaintiffs have also asserted a claim based on violation of state consumer protection laws (Count 7). The Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of action: (1) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (against all the Defendants and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (2) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of state antitrust laws (against all the Defendants and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (3) monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (against Gilead only and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (4) monopolization in violation of state antitrust laws (against Gilead only and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (5) attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (against Gilead only and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (6) attempted monopolization in violation of state antitrust laws (against Gilead only and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (7) violation of state consumer protection laws (against all the Defendants and implicating all three categories of anticompetitive conduct); (8) conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (against Gilead and Janssen only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only); (9) conspiracy in violation of state antitrust laws (against Gilead and Janssen only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only); (10) conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (against Gilead and Japan Tobacco only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only); (11) conspiracy in violation of state antitrust laws (against Gilead and Japan Tobacco only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only); (12) conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (against Gilead and BMS only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only); and (13) conspiracy in violation of state antitrust laws (against Gilead and BMS only and implicating the No-Generics Restraints only). The anticompetitive conduct identified in the Plaintiffs' CAC falls into the following three categories: (1) agreements between Gilead and one of the other defendants that contain No-Generics Restraints; (2) patent settlement agreements between Gilead and a generic manufacturer, Teva, under which Teva agreed to delay entry into the market in exchange for certain benefits; and (3) Gilead's commercialization of one of its drugs known as TAF. Currently pending before the Court are four motions to dismiss, one filed by each Defendant named. Two amicus briefs have also been submitted: one from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and one from a group of nonprofit organizations that do HIV-related work. Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The overarching conspiracy claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The motions to dismiss the antitrust claims based on the No-Generics Restraints are granted in part and denied in part. The claims based on the No-Generics Restraints in the Gilead/Japan Tobacco agreement are dismissed with prejudice. The claims based on the No-Generics Restraints in the Gilead/BMS agreements and the Gilead/Janssen agreements are allowed to proceed. The Plaintiffs have leave to provide a more definite statement regarding their antitrust injury theory that untainted competitors in BMS, Japan Tobacco, and Janssen's positions would actually have challenged Gilead's patents prior to their expiration dates (e.g., instead of waiting for the TDF patents to expire in December 2017). The Judge denied the motion to dismiss the antitrust claims based on the Teva settlement agreements, and based on Gilead's commercialization of TAF. The motion to dismiss based on a failure to adequately plead the relevant market is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a cART market. Plaintiffs have leave to amend. The motion to dismiss the state law claims (antitrust and consumer) is granted in part and denied in part. Applying California law to nationwide purchases is not a due process violation. The Court will address at the class certification stage Gilead's argument that Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their state law claims for 25 states (i.e., because n purchase by any the Plaintiff is alleged in the 25 states) The motion to dismiss based on failure to satisfy pre-filing requirements is denied. The motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims for damages is granted as to the Illinois Antitrust Act and the Puerto Rico Antitrust Act. On the Rhode Island Antitrust Act and the Maryland Antitrust Act, Rhode Island and Maryland each has an Illinois Brick repealer statute but indirect purchaser claims for damages prior to the effective date of that statute are not viable. The motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims for damages under the Utah Antitrust Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act is denied without prejudice. The Judge denied the motion to dismiss certain consumer protection claims based on an end run argument (i.e., around Illinois Brick), the motion to dismiss the consumer protection claims as conclusorily pled, and the motion to dismiss the consumer protection claims to the extent based on deceptive conduct. However, he ordered the Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement as to what relief is sought for any deceptive conduct. The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the union insurers' claims based on the consumer protection laws of the following states/jurisdictions: Hawaii, Kansas, and Vermont. The motion to dismiss the monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under Kansas, New York, and Tennessee law is granted in part -- i.e., to the extent the claims are based on the unilateral conduct of Gilead in commercializing TAF. To the extent the Court has allowed the Plaintiffs leave to amend, the Plaintiffs' amended complaint will be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. Thereafter, the Defendants will have 30 days to respond. If the Defendants respond with another motion to dismiss, the Court strongly encouraged the Defendants (as before) to coordinate. Ideally, the Defendants would be able to file a joint motion to dismiss, and the Court would extend page limitations to reflect the joint nature of the motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/UG5J1c from Leagle.com. Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, Service Employees International Union, Local No. 1 Health Fund, Peter Staley, Steve Fuller, Gregg S. Gonsalves, PhD, Brenda Emily Goodrow, Andrew R. Spieldenner, PhD, Robert J. Vazquez, Jason Walker, Michael Warner & Jacob Zydonis, Plaintiffs, represented by Aditya Vijay Kamdar, Durie Tangri LLP, Alberto Rodriguez, Sperling & Slater P.C., Daniel Evan Rubenstein, Radice Law Firm, David Paul Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, David Floyd McGowan, Durie Tangri LLP, Donald Sean Nation, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Eamon Padraic Kelly, Sperling & Slater P.C., pro hac vice, Frazar Wright Thomas, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory T. Arnold, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, pro hac vice, John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, pro hac vice, Laura Elizabeth Miller, Durie Tangri LLP, Mark Alan Lemley, Durie Tangri LLP, Matthew C. Weiner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Michael Patrick Ols, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller, Shah, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Nicholas William Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Richard M. Brunell, Hilliard and Shadowen, pro hac vice, Robert C. Hilliard, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen, LLP, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, W. Henry Huttinger, Durie Tangri LLP & Daralyn J. Durie -- ddurie@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP. Michael Snipe, John Carroll, Josh McDonald, John Doe, Gabriel Molina & Troy Vazquez-Cain, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin Francis Ruf, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Alberto Rodriguez, Sperling & Slater P.C., David Paul Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Eamon Padraic Kelly, Sperling & Slater P.C., pro hac vice, Frazar Wright Thomas, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Gallagher, Jr., Milberg Phillips Grossman, pro hac vice & Robert C. Hilliard -- info@hilliardshadowen.com -- Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice. Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Alberto Rodriguez, Sperling & Slater P.C., Brian D. Brooks, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, David Paul Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Donald Sean Nation, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Eamon Padraic Kelly, Sperling & Slater P.C., pro hac vice, Frazar Wright Thomas, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Francis Ruf, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew C. Weiner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Nicholas William Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Robert C. Hilliard, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen, LLP & Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Alberto Rodriguez, Sperling & Slater P.C., David Paul Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Donald Sean Nation, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Eamon Padraic Kelly, Sperling & Slater P.C., pro hac vice, Frazar Wright Thomas, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Francis Ruf, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew C. Weiner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Nicholas William Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Robert C. Hilliard, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen, LLP & Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Alberto Rodriguez, Sperling & Slater P.C., David Paul Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Eamon Padraic Kelly, Sperling & Slater P.C., pro hac vice, Frazar Wright Thomas, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Jessica N. Servais, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Robert C. Hilliard -- info@hilliardshadowen.com -- Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Sciences, LLC & Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Defendants, represented by Bryan Gant, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, pro hac vice, Gabriella Elizabeth Bensur, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Heather K. McDevitt, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Holly Tao, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Peter J. Carney -- pcarney@whitecase.com -- White and Case, pro hac vice. Gilead Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan Gant, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, pro hac vice, Gabriella Elizabeth Bensur, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Heather K. McDevitt, White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Holly Tao, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP & Peter J. Carney, White and Case, pro hac vice. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & E. R. Squibb & Sons, LLC, Defendants, represented by Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Ada Victoria Anon, Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Cindy Yuanjia Hong, Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer, pro hac vice & Laura S. Shores -- laura.shores@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Japan Tobacco Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively -- Ashley.Shively@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP & Jerome W. Hoffman, Holland and Knight, LLP. Janssen R&D Ireland, Defendant, represented by Joanne Celia Lewers, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Defendant, represented by Joanne Celia Lewers, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Paul Hewit Saint-Antoine, Faegre Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Paul Jeffrey Riehle -- paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com -- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Federal Trade Commission, Amicus, represented by Markus H. Meier, Federal Trade Commission. HIV Organizations, Amicus, represented by Phillip Robert Malone -- pmalone@law.stanford.edu -- Stanford Law School. GOLDEN VALLEY: Fails to Protect Medical Info, Doe Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, and JOHN DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Case No. 20CV-01568 (Cal. Super., Merced Cty., May 18, 2020), alleges that GVHC failed to protect and preserve confidentiality of its patients' identifiable medical information contained in the e-mail accounts of its employees from being accessed and/or viewed by unauthorized third parties, in violation of the Medical Information Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants had the resources necessary to protect and preserve confidentiality of electronic medical information of their patients in its possession, but neglected to adequately implement data security measures, despite its obligation to do so. The Plaintiffs are patients of GVHC. The Defendant is a health care provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Addresses Counsel Communications in Chen-Oster ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, H. CHRISTINA CHEN-OSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10 Civ. 06950 (AT) (RWL) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued an order addressing the class counsel's communications with certain class members. On March 26, 2020, the Court issued a comprehensive decision and order regarding Goldman's motion to compel arbitration and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to void arbitration provisions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d). The Arbitration Order granted Goldman's motion and denied the Plaintiff's cross-motion with respect to Goldman employees who had entered into three types of agreements containing mandatory arbitration clauses. With respect to a fourth group -- employees who entered into equity agreement -- the Court held that the arbitration provisions were enforceable as a matter of contract law but that pursuant to Rule 23(d), the Equity Agreement Employees will have the opportunity to opt out of arbitration due to the manner in which agreement to the equity agreement's arbitration provisions was obtained. The Arbitration Order directed the parties to meet and confer about the content of a notice to issue to the Equity Agreement Employees advising them of their rights with respect to opting out of arbitration. The purpose of proceeding in that fashion was to ensure a non-misleading description and a fair procedure for the Equity Agreement Employees to opt out of arbitration. At the Plaintiff's request, the Court stayed the parties' meet and confer obligation until the Hon. Analisa Torres rules on the parties' respective objections to the Arbitration Order. On April 27, 2020, Goldman brought to the Court's attention an April 24, 2020 email sent by the class counsel to an Equity Agreement Employee currently employed by Goldman. The class counsel acknowledges that they sent the same communication to all other Equity Agreement Employees. The Email addressed the Arbitration Order and encouraged recipients to opt out of arbitration. It also made several statements that Goldman contends are false or misleading, including statements about potential remedies, Goldman's actions, and the Arbitration Order. Following the parties' initial correspondence on the issue, the Court issued an order to schedule a conference to discuss the matter. That order directed both the Plaintiff and the defense counsel not to initiate further communications with the Equity Agreement Employees about the Arbitration Order pending the conference. At the conference, the class counsel represented that they have issued no group communication about the Arbitration Order other than the Email. The instant dispute concerns the propriety of the class counsel communications with class members after class certification, as well as the Court's discretionary power and obligation to supervise class actions, including communications, pursuant to Rule 23(d). The Plaintiffs moved under Rule 23(d) to invalidate arbitration provisions as being improper communications from the Defendants to the class members, and now the Plaintiffs have proceeded in a way that puts them in the crosshairs of Rule 23(d). Magistrate Judge Lehrburger holds that the Court's Arbitration Order set forth a procedure that the parties were to follow for providing notice to Equity Agreement Employees about the Arbitration Order and their right to opt out of the arbitration or remain in the class action. The Email undermined that process, all the more so coming in the wake of the class counsel's request to stay the Court-supervised notice procedure. Had the class counsel wanted to communicate to the Equity Agreement Employees about the matter prior to issuance of the Court-approved notice, the proper course, from the Court's perspective, would have been for the class counsel to first raise the issue with the Court. It is not the first time that the class notice issues have arisen in the case. Following class certification in 2018, the Court resolved the parties' disputes about the notice to be issued apprising class members of their right to opt out of the class. One issue concerned whether Plaintiffs should at that time be permitted to receive class member contact information. The Court resolved the issue in favor of the Plaintiffs and rejected Goldman's suggestion that the class counsel would improperly communicate with the class members: "As for the potential for undue influence over class members who may be considering opting out, the Court is not prepared to assume that Plaintiffs' counsel will abuse its right to communicate with class members and expects that the Plaintiff's counsel will conduct themselves appropriately if and when they do so." That expectation applies no less now than it did then, the Magistrate Judge holds. The Equity Agreement Employees' choice to opt out of arbitration or remain in the class is similar in kind to their earlier choice of whether to opt out of the class. Both are decisions about whether to participate in the class action. Similar concerns for undue influence, fairness, and propriety of communications apply to both. The question then is whether a remedy is warranted with respect to the Email and class counsel's communications going forward. As noted, Goldman asserts that the Email contained misleading and incorrect statements -- thus demonstrating actual, not merely likely, abuse. The parties have not briefed, and the Court has not made any determination about, the truth or misleading aspects of the Email one way or the other. But to the extent that the Defendant's assertion is accurate, an appropriately narrow remedy would be to issue a corrective notice. As stated during the teleconference, however, Goldman eschewed that remedy because of Goldman's concern that reminding Equity Agreement Employees of the Email would only make things worse. Goldman instead urges the Court to require that any class counsel communications with Equity Agreement Employees concerning the arbitration issue be submitted for comment by Goldman and approval by the Court. Goldman also proposes that a script be prepared dictating what class counsel may say in response to inquiries from Equity Agreement Employees. The Magistrate Judge does not believe such strong medicine is required. Importantly, Equity Agreement Employees are entitled to legal counsel, albeit free from misleading information, about their choice between remaining obligated to arbitrate or opting out of arbitration to remain in the class action. In the Arbitration Order, the Court observed that the class members are well-educated, experienced professionals not easily duped, a point that Goldman repeatedly emphasized in support of its motion to compel arbitration. The same can be said of those same Equity Agreement Employees in regard to receiving legal advice from class counsel and making an informed decision about how they wish to proceed. The Magistrate Judge finds that scripting or requiring pre-clearance review of the class counsel's communications with Equity Agreement Employees about arbitration is not warranted at this time. In the event, however, that the Judge comes to learn that any of the Plaintiffs' other communications (whether past or future) to Equity Agreement Employees (or, for that matter, any class members) contain misleading or incorrect statements, he will not hesitate to take appropriate action. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/ju0upl from Leagle.com. GOLI NUTRITION: Borgia Disputes Gummy Product's Nutritional Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Borgia and Juliet Osmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goli Nutrition Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-at-00473, (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), seeks compensatory and statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for breach of express warranty. Goli manufactures, distributes, and sells apple cider vinegar gummy products. It claims that it as an alternative to traditional apple cider vinegar. Plaintiffs claim that the amount of acetic acid does not come close to that of actual apple cider vinegar. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Tel: (313) 303-3472 Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com HARTFORD FIN'L: Pure Fitness Seeks Payment for COVID Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- PURE FITNESS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00775-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contractual obligation. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated business entities that purchased a property insurance policy issued by the Defendants, alleges that the Defendants breached their obligation to pay for business losses under the policy's business interruption, extra expense, and civil authority coverage. The Plaintiff suffered business losses following the suspension of its business operations in March 2020 as mandated by civil authorities to close non-essential business establishments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, the Hartford's policy is an all-risk insurance policy, which covers all risks of loss that may happen (except by fraudulent acts of the insured), no matter their source and however fortuitous the event or circumstance may be, as long as it is beyond the control of the insured and unless the policy contains a specific provision expressly excluding the loss from coverage. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are obligated to pay for the losses as they are within the scope of the policy. Pure Fitness, LLC is a personal fitness establishment located at 1425 Montgomery Highway, Suite 115, Vestavia, Alabama. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an investment and insurance company with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. Hartford Fire Insurance Company is an insurance company with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. It is a subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Twin City Fire Insurance Company is an insurance company with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. It is a subsidiary of Hartford Fire Insurance Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and – Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com dgpjr@wigginschilds.com - and – Myron C. Penn, Esq. PENN & SEABORN, LLC 53 Highway 110 Post Office Box 5335 Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4486 Facsimile: (334) 738-4432 E-mail: myronpenn28@hotmail.com - and – F. Inge Johnstone, Esq. JOHNSTONE CARROLL, LLC 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 303 Homewood, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 383-1809 Facsimile: (888) 759-3882 E-mail: ijohnstone@johnstonecarroll.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Metro Dental Seeks Payment for COVID Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- METROPOLITAN DENTAL ARTS P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02443-WFK-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2020) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied claims related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class-wide basis, without individual bases or investigations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class insure against unforeseen catastrophic events like the COVID-19 pandemic through all-risk commercial property insurance policies. These policies promise to indemnify the policyholder for actual business losses incurred when business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed, when access to the premises is prohibited because of direct physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil authority order that restricts or prohibits access to the property. This coverage is commonly known as "business interruption coverage" and is standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies. The Defendants, and most insurers who have issued all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business interruption coverage, are denying their obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to their property from measures put in place by the governmental entities to stop the spread of COVID-19. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance company. The Hartford is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in its namesake city of Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com HAVEN DINER: Kitchen Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elmer Orlando, Anaya Gomez and William Noe Batres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chamiara, Inc., Mela Food Corp., Harbans Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Alex Molina, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02190, (S.D. N.Y., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawfully withheld gratuities and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statement violations. Defendants operate a diner located in Port Washington, New York under the name "Haven Diner," where Plaintiffs are former dishwashers, delivery employees, bussers, grillers and line cooks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Email: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com Website: www.PeltonGraham.com HILTON EL SEGUNDO: Jacques ADA Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Guernica Jean Jacques, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton El Segundo LLC, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV42198, was removed from California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04754 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hilton El Segundo LLC (trade name Hilton Garden Inn Lax El Sgundo) is in the hotels business. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Nicole Arnett, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Fax: (213) 270-9601 Email: aarnett@seyfarth.com HONDA MOTOR: Fails to Fix Defective Fuel Pumps, Oliver Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TUCKER OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; DENSO CORPORATION; and DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00666-MHH (N.D. Ala., May 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict product liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent recall/undertaking, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who bought or leased Honda's 2013-2019 vehicles equipped with Denso made low-pressure fuel pumps, alleges that Honda's recall of the Class vehicles due to defective Denso fuel pumps was inadequate because it failed to accurately diagnose and remedy the fuel pump defect, it failed to include all Honda manufactured vehicles equipped with the Denso made low-pressure fuel pump, and it failed to recommend that consumers quit driving their vehicle until it is repaired. As a result of Honda's actions and inactions, owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles are exposed to the risk of grave physical harm or even death in an event of fuel pump failure as it prevents drivers from accelerating at the necessary and anticipated pace. Honda Motor Company Limited is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place of business at 2-1-1, Minami-Aoyama Minato-Ku, 107-8556 Japan. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is the sales and marketing subsidiary of, and is wholly owned by Honda Motor Company Limited based in Torrance, California. Denso Corporation is a fuel pump designer and manufacturer with principal place of business at 1-1, Showa-cho, Karlya, Alchi 448-9661, Japan. Denso International America, Inc. is a fuel pump designer, manufacturer, and seller in North America, with its principal place of business at 2477 Denso Drive Southfield, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Demet.basar@beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com III OFFICE RESOURCE: Cerda FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO CERDA, EDELMAN SANCHEZ, MARVIN LEONEL LOPEZ GRAMAJO, EDDI ESTIVER LAM YOC, and WILLIAM ALEXANDER LOPEZ SANCHEZ, On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. III OFFICE RESOURCE GROUP, INC. and PAUL ROSS LOWE III, Case No. 4:20-cv-00249, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on May 20, 2020. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01313-M to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Office Resource supplies used and new office furniture in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N St. Paul Street, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com The Respondents are represented by: Steven E. Clark, Esq. CLARK FIRM PLLC 5445 La Sierra Drive, Suite 415 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 890-4066 Facsimile: (214) 890-4013 E-mail: sclark@dfwlaborlaw.com JACKSON HEWITT: Court Narrows Claims in Mardis Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, WANDA MARDIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-2115, (D. N.J.). Defendants are Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. ("JHTS") and Jackson Hewitt, Inc. ("JH") (collectively, "Jackson Hewitt"), and KE Farmer Enterprises, LLC ("KEF"), Lemaire-McCumsey Group, Inc. ("LMG"), Taylor Tax and Accounting ("TAYLOR"), and Wing Financial Services, LLC ("WING") (collectively, the "Franchisees"), among others. Defendants collectively provide tax preparation services to customers under the tradename "Jackson Hewitt." Plaintiffs are Wanda Mardis, Kim Alexander, Cecilia Morris, Karla Dozier, Sheila Baker, Sandra Coleman, Katrina Corbitt, Jacqueline Knight, Amy Donaldson, Sonja Niemeyer, Terry Meyer, Catherine Dickerson, Carol Scott, Amanda Disotell, Elaine Fernandez, Jessica Gay, Christina Babineaux, Brenda Boyd, LaDonna Washington, and Danice Ragland, (collectively, "Named Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that the Franchisees' "day to day operations [] are closely supervised and controlled by [Jackson Hewitt]" and that "although [Jackson Hewitt] may purport to be separate from [the Franchisees], in reality, they act as an integrated enterprise, alter egos of each other and as joint employer[s]." All Named Plaintiffs claim that they were previously, or are currently, employed by Jackson Hewitt. In addition, Named Plaintiffs Corbitt, Knight, Donaldson, Niemeyer, Meyer, Dickerson, Scott, Disotell, Babineaux, and Washington claim to have been previously jointly employed by Jackson Hewitt and one of the Franchisees. The putative class action concerns Defendants' alleged violations of Plaintiffs' employment contracts and various states' wage laws by reducing the commissions earned by Plaintiffs as tax preparers for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2107 tax seasons. On October 4, 2017, Plaintiffs were instructed to file their Third Amended Complaint naming all franchises at which Named Plaintiffs worked. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, naming as additional defendants LMG, KEF, TAYLOR, and WING, among other franchises. Specially, Plaintiffs assert twelve claims against either Jackson Hewitt, the Franchisees, or both: (1) breach of contract against LMG, KEF, TAYLOR, and WING; (2) unjust enrichment against Jackson Hewitt; (3) violation of Kentucky wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (4) violation of Illinois wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (5) violation of New York wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (6) violation of New Jersey wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (7) violation of Pennsylvania wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (8) violation of California wage law against TAYLOR and Jackson Hewitt; (9) violation of South Carolina wage law against KEF and Jackson Hewitt; (10) violation of North Carolina wage law against Jackson Hewitt; (11) violation of Oklahoma wage law against WING and Jackson Hewitt; and (12) violation of Washington wage law against Jackson Hewitt. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss in the case. Specifically, Defendant Jackson Hewitt moved to dismiss Count Eleven for failure to state a claim. Defendant LMG moved to dismiss all counts against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, for improper venue, and for improper joinder, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. Defendants KEF and TAYLOR together moved to dismiss all counts against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and pursuant to the doctrine of forum non-conveniens, or in the alternative, for Plaintiffs' claims to be severed and transferred. Defendant WING moved to dismiss all counts against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and pursuant to the doctrine of forum non-conveniens, or in the alternative, for Plaintiffs' claims to be severed and transferred. Personal Jurisdiction over Defendants KEF, TAYLOR, LMG, and WING Defendants KEF, TAYLOR, LMG, and WING each move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint for, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish personal jurisdiction over KEF, TAYLOR, LMG, and WING. Plaintiffs contend that they are Affiliates within the meaning of the franchise agreement because Plaintiffs as employees were all directly and indirectly controlled by Jackson Hewitt and/or were under common control with Jackson Hewitt and the Franchisees. In other words, Plaintiffs claim that, as employees, they fall under the definition of any person or entity that, directly or indirectly is controlled by, or is under common control with Jackson Hewitt. In response, the Franchisees argue that are not Affiliates of Jackson Hewitt within the meaning of the franchise agreement The Court agrees with the Franchisees. Here, reading the franchise agreement in a fair and common sense manner leads to the conclusion that Plaintiffs are not Affiliates of Jackson Hewitt within the meaning of the franchise agreement. Plaintiffs admit that they are employees. The franchise agreement makes a clear distinction between affiliates and employees. Again, if Plaintiffs' interpretation of Affiliate were adopted, then the distinct use of the different terms employee and Affiliate would be rendered meaningless or superfluous. Accordingly, the franchise agreement clearly distinguishes between the terms employee and Affiliate and therefore, the Court declines to read them as synonymous. Rather, by interpreting the franchise agreement in a fair and common sense manner so as to match the reasonable expectations of the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not Affiliates of Jackson Hewitt within the meaning of the franchise agreement, and therefore, the forum selection clause is not applicable as a basis for personal jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff provides no other basis for this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over the Franchisees, the Court therefore grants Defendants KEF, TAYLOR, LMG, and WING's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Jackson Hewitt's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Defendant Jackson Hewitt moved to dismiss Count Eleven against it for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that neither JHTS nor JH can be considered an employer under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. Plaintiff Washington and the Oklahoma Sub-Class acknowledge that JHTS is the parent corporation of JH, and JH is the franchisor of WING, the franchisee. Therefore, Jackson Hewitt asserts that regardless of Plaintiffs' theory of joint employer liability, pursuant to Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005(B),(C) a franchisor shall not be considered the employer of a franchisee or a franchisee's employees and the employees of a franchisee shall not be considered employees of the franchisor. The Court finds that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 does not apply retroactively. Under Oklahoma law, statutes and amendments are to be construed to operate only prospectively unless the legislature clearly expresses a contrary intent. Jackson Hewitt argues that retroactivity can be implied from the context in which the Oklahoma legislature enacted Section 6005. Specifically, Jackson Hewitt argues that the Oklahoma legislature intended to apply Section 6005 retroactively in the wake of the National Labor Relations Board's 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc., which expanded the joint-employer standard under the National Labor Relations Act. However, even accepting Jackson Hewitt's argument that the Oklahoma legislature enacted Section 6005 in response to the proceedings described above, Jackson Hewitt provides no indication that the legislature did so with the particular intention of applying Section 6005 retroactively. At best, Jackson Hewitt's argument merely casts doubt as to whether Section 6005 should apply retroactively, and therefore, the doubt should be resolved against retrospective effect. Here, the Court disagrees that Section 6005 was a clarifying amendment. There was no ambiguity in any previous version of section 6005 because there was no previous version of the statute. As argued by Jackson Hewitt, the Oklahoma legislature allegedly first enacted Section 6005 in response to the federal proceedings described above. Insofar as Jackson Hewitt argues that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 should instead be read as clarifying Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, Section 165, the latter is a wholly separate statute addressing different issues. Even assuming that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 could be read as clarifying Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, Section 165, the latter is not an ambiguous law in need of clarification to remove doubt concerning the legislative intent in the original text. Rather, it appears that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 was enacted as an entirely new statute addressing the employer/employee relationship as it relates to franchises. Accordingly, Court finds that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 does not apply retroactively to bar Count Eleven insofar as Plaintiffs' claims arose before November 1, 2016. However, the Court also finds and Plaintiffs appear to concede that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 59, Section 6005 does bar Count Eleven insofar as Plaintiffs' claims arose on or after November 1, 2016. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Jackson Hewitt's motion to dismiss Count Eleven, and GRANTS Defendants LMG, KEF, TAYLOR, and WING's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The full-text copy of the District Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/rxxwebq from Leagle.com WANDA MARDIS, KIM ALEXANDER, CECILIA MORRIS, KARLA DOZIER, SHEILA BAKER, SONJA NIEMEYER, ELAINE FERNANDEZ, TERRY MEYER, SANDRA COLEMAN, JACQUELINE KNIGHT, BRENDA BOYD, AMY DONALDSON, CATHERINE DICKERSON, CHRISTINA BABINEAUX, JESSICA GAY, LADONNA WASHINGTON, AMANDA DISOTELL, CAROL SCOTT & DANICE RAGLAND, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON , Stern Thomasson LLP, BRADLEY KEITH KING , AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC & PHILIP D. STERN , STERN THOMASSON LLP, P 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, New Jersey 07081-1315 KATRINA CORBITT, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON , Stern Thomasson LLP. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., JACKSON HEWITT, INC. & TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, represented by KEVIN JOSEPH O'CONNOR - koconnor@pecklaw.com - PECKAR & ABRAMSON, PC. KE FARMER ENTERPRISES, LLC & TAYLOR TAX AND ACCOUNTING, Defendants, represented by KERRI ANN WRIGHT , PORZIO BROMBERG & NEWMAN & DAVID LAWRENCE DISLER , PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C., 100 Southgate Pkwy, Morristown, NJ 07960-6465 LEMAIRE-MCCUMSEY GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by RONALD J. CAMPIONE - rcampione@bressler.com - BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, PC. WING FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by THOMAS R. CURTIN -TCURTIN@MDMC-LAW.COM - MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & GEORGE C. JONES - GJONES@MDMC-LAW.COM - MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP. JP MORGAN: Orozco and Rosales Sue Over Employment Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDMUNDO OROZCO AND DAVID ROSALES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01961 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiffs for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, the Texas Employment Discrimination Act, and any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein, as Defendant subjected Hispanic Home Lending Advisors to discrimination based on their race, color, and national origin. Plaintiffs were employed as loan officers at several of Defendant's branch locations in Houston, Texas, and held the title of Home Lender Advisor. Plaintiff Orozco worked for Defendant from November 2017 to December 2019, and Plaintiff Rosales worked for Defendant from in or around February 2017 to February 2019. Throughout their employment, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, experienced discriminatory treatment because of their race, color, and national origin. According to the complaint, Hispanic Home Lending Advisors were disproportionally assigned to lower performing and less lucrative branches. Clients in these branches often faced significant challenges in obtaining housing and loan approval such a lower credit scores, lower income, less assets to utilize for down payments and closing costs requirements, and less assets to qualify on loans to refinance their loans and purchase homes. Due to the disproportionate and discriminatory job assignments to which Plaintiffs were subjected, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated found it incredibly difficult to meet the same minimum loan production guidelines required of Home Lending Advisors in higher performing and more lucrative branches. Plaintiff Rosales was told that he would be terminated if he could not meet the guidelines and felt that he had no choice but to resign as the guidelines were impossible to meet due to his discriminatory placement in lower performing and less lucrative branches. Plaintiff Rosales was constructively discharged in February 2019 and Plaintiff Orozco was constructively discharged in December 2019. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. ELLWANGER LAW LLLP 8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy. Suite 190 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 808-2260 Facsimile: (737) 808-2262 Email: jellwanger@equalrights.law LONGFIN CORP: Revisions to Class Notice in Securities Suit Ordered ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that the Plaintiff's revisions to the proposed class notice were due May 8, 2020 in IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION, Case No. 18cv2933 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.). A telephone conference has been held to discuss, among other things, the Plaintiff's proposed class notice. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 1, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/BR5Q7j from Leagle.com. LOVE'S COUNTRY: Renteria Files Suit in California Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LOVE'S COUNTRY STORES OF CALIFORNIA. The case is styled as Estefania Renteria, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all person similarly situated v. LOVE'S COUNTRY STORES OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-101260 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., May 28, 2020). The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited." Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores is an American family-owned chain of more than 500 truck stop and convenience stores in 41 states in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in Howard FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TRAVIS HOWARD, VANESSA HOWARD, WILLIAM SIMMS, CHARLES NEFF, STACY ADAMS-NEFF, and GWEN SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-93 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Kim R. Gibson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part LVNV's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs, debtors who each filed for bankruptcy protection, brought the class action against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's ("FDCPA") prohibitions on making false or misleading representations to collect a debt and using unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices by filing false proofs of claim of debts the Plaintiffs owed during each their respective bankruptcy proceedings. Between March 2018 and March 2019, each Plaintiff filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 13 of the Code. In each of the Plaintiffs' bankruptcy proceedings, LVNV filed a proof of claim to collect a debt they allegedly owe or owed to LVNV. On each proof of claim, LVNV listed the amount of the claim and did not check a box stating that the claim included "interest or other charges." The proof of claim listed the entire amount claimed as principal and nothing owed in either interest or fees. The various proofs of claim ranged in value from $309.36 to $1,148.62. Although the proofs of claim stated otherwise, the amounts claimed included interest and fees. LVNV knew that the amounts included interest and fees because it received records of the debts when it purchased the debts from the original creditors. LVNV knowingly filed false proofs of claim against each of Plaintiffs and the filing of false proofs of claim is LVNV's regular practice. After filing a false proof of claim, LVNV either withdraws the claim after the debtor objects, permits the bankruptcy court to disallow the claim by default, or provides correct information after the bankruptcy court orders it to do so. These false filings deny the debtors information necessary to properly evaluate the proofs of claim. By falsely filing, LVNV is saved the expense and burden of correctly stating the value of the proof of claim with separate valuations for principal, interest, and fees. The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint with the Court on June 6, 2019. LVNV filed a Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 5, 2019, and the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Aug. 26, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges that LVNV violated the FDCPA's prohibitions on making false or misleading representations in collecting debts in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1692e, as well as the FDCPA's bar on using unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1692f. LVNV renewed its Motion to Dismiss on Sept. 10, 2019. The Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Opposition on Oct. 1, 2019. LVNNV makes two arguments in support of its Motion: (1) the Code preempts the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims; and (2) the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to state a claim. Judge Gibson holds that the Code does not preempt the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims. The Judge finds that there is no conflict between the Code and the FDCPA. The Code, through Rule 3001, imposes an obligation to truthfully report and itemize the value of a debt to collect it through bankruptcy. The FDCPA similarly bars misrepresentations in debt collection. There is also no conflict between the Code's remedies and the FDCPA's. Remedies for a violation of Rule 3001 include, but are not limited to, precluding the filer from presenting evidence of the debt in the case and awarding expenses or attorney's fees caused by the failure to provide an accurate proof of claim. Remedies for FDCPA violations include actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees. As there is no conflict between the obligations of the Code and the FDCPA, as well as their respective remedies, there is no preemption. To the extent LVNV's Motion seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 1692e claims, the Judge denies the Motion. The Judge finds that the least sophisticated debtor could have been misled by LVNV's proofs of claim and the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of the FDCPA's ban on false or misleading representations in debt collection. Finally, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices. The Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise to the level of "shockingly unjust or unfair" and accordingly they have not stated a claim for a violation of Section 1692f. The filing of false or misleading proofs of claim by itself is not conduct that falls within one of the categories Section 1692f specifically prohibits, it does not rise to the level Arias established. Although LVNV's proofs of claim were misleading, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not support the inference that the proofs of claim were frivolous or that LVNV filed them primarily to harass them. Further, LVNV's conduct underlying the Plaintiffs' allegations of unfair or unconscionable conduct is the same conduct that forms the basis of their claim for unfair or unconscionable practices. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against LVNV for violations of Section 1692f. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gibson denied on part and granted in part LVNV's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with prejudice to the extent it alleges that LVNV violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 28, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/J041Bk from Leagle.com. TRAVIS HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, VANESSA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, WILLIAM SIMMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STACY ADAMS-NEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, GWEN SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & CHARLES NEFF, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark G. Moynihan -- mark@moynihanlaw.net -- Moynihan Law, P.C. & Kevin Abramowicz -- kevina@bcjlawyer.com -- BCJ Law LLC. LVNV FUNDING, LLC & RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, represented by Jessica Lucas -- jlucas@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Mark J. Golen, II -- mgolen@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Peter G. Siachos -- psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees. MATADOR PRODUCTION: Court Issues Protective Order in Martin Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has issued a Protective Order in the case, GARY MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00054-GJF-KRS, (D. N.M.). The Protective Order is issued to facilitate document disclosure and production under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in the Order, the Order will remain in effect through the conclusion of the litigation. Documents, discovery responses and deposition testimony containing Confidential Information disclosed or produced by any party in the litigation are referred to as "Protected Documents." At any time after the delivery of Protected Documents, the counsel for the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents may challenge the Confidential designation of all or any portion thereof by providing written notice thereof to the counsel for the party disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The Protected Documents and any information contained therein will not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated to anyone for any purpose whatsoever, except as provided for in the Protective Order. The Protected Documents and any information contained therein will be used solely for the prosecution of the litigation. The parties may file under seal documents designated by the parties as Confidential. Each of the parties agrees to the filing of a motion to seal pertaining to Confidential Information, unless the objecting party has objected to the Confidentiality designation as provided in the Order. After termination of the litigation, the provisions of the Order will continue to be binding, except with respect to those documents and information that become a matter of public record. The Court retains and will have continuing jurisdiction over the parties and recipients of the Protected Documents for enforcement of the provisions of the Order following termination of the litigation. Upon termination of the action by dismissal, judgment, settlement, or otherwise, including all appeals, counsel for the party or parties, at its election, will either request that all the Protected Documents be destroyed or returned. Once signed by the counsel for the parties, the Agreed Protective Order is an enforceable agreement and stipulation between the parties, and the parties may rely upon it produce documents as Confidential without necessity of waiting on the Court's entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/QYzgxZ from Leagle.com. MDL 2948: Joining of 10 Data Privacy Suits in S.D. Ill. Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned A.S. v. TikTok, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. Ill.), moves the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer related actions and any subsequently filed tag-along actions or related actions, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under MDL No. 2948, In re: TIKTOK INC. DATA PRIVACY, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions include: -- P.S., et al. v. TikTok, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02992 (N.D. Cal.); -- D.M., et al., v. TikTok, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-03185 (N.D. Cal.); -- Hong v. ByteDance, Inc., a corporation, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-07792 (N.D. Cal.); -- R.S., et al., v. TikTok, Inc., a corporation, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-03212 (N.D. Cal.); -- S.A. v. TikTok, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-03294 (N.D. Cal.); -- E.R. v. TikTok, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02810 (N.D. Ill.); -- Marks v. TikTok, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02883 (N.D. Ill.); -- D.H. v. TIKTOK, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02884 (N.D. Ill.); -- L.B v. TIKTOK, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02889 (N.D. Ill.); and -- A.S. v. TikTok Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. Ill.). TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based internet technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 3518A Arsenal Street Saint Louis, MO 63118 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com francisflynn@gmail.com - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643 E-mail: tyiatras@gmail.com MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Taylor Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees v. MICHAEL KORS, INC.; MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC.; MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA), INC.; MICHAEL KORS RETAIL, INC.; ADECCO USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV1961 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the Labor Code based on their failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods; and failure to provide a temperature providing reasonable comfort. The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees are current, former and/or future employees of the Defendants, who worked, work, or will work for the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees in California. Michael Kors designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear. The Company offers shirts, t-shirts, sweaters, jackets, pants, suits and blazers, shorts, underwear, dresses, skirts, shorts, handbags, wallets, shoes, watches, and accessories for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberrv@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-Mail: sahagii@aol.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Kaur Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Kuldeep Kaur, Bonnie Meyer, and Josette Bauer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00839-SCD (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MINNESOTA: Court Dismisses Munt Prisoner Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Joel Munt, Plaintiff, v. Paul Schnell, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections; Michelle Smith, OPH Warden; Tammy Wherley, former OPH AWA; Michael Costello, Former STW Discipline Lt.; David Reishus, OPH AWO, OPH Transfer Office; Jeanne Michels, OPH Education Director; Sadie Snyder, former OPH Librarian; Eddie Miles, STW Warden; Victor Wanchena, STW AWA; Mike Warner, STW Discipline Lt.; United States Courts; and MN Courts, Defendants, Civil No. 18-3390 (DWF/ECW) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Munt's Complaint without prejudice. The District Court also denied Plaintiff Munt's (i) Request for a Stay and Sanctions, (ii) Request for a Gag Order; (iii) Motion to Certify Class; (iv) Request for Sanctions; (v) Motion to Strike; and (vi) Request for Court Actions; and (c) dismissed without prejudice Munt's Complaint. The matter before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Munt's self-styled objections to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright's Jan. 31, 2020 Report and Recommendation insofar as it recommends that: (1) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted; (2) the Plaintiff's Request for a Stay and Sanctions be denied; (3) the Plaintiff's Request for a Gag Order be denied; (4) the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class be denied as moot; (5) the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike be denied; (6) the Plaintiff's Request for Court Actions be denied; and (8) the Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice. Judge Frank has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of the counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge appears to give no thought to the Complaint nor the extensive arguments in his response to the dismissal and that she did not address "the relevant factual allegations or law. Plaintiff similarly contends that she "ignored," "failed to consider," "imagined" things, or "missed the crux" of the case. Judge Frank disagrees. Indeed, Judge Frank finds that Magistrate Judge Wright thoroughly addressed all of the Plaintiff's claims, considered each of his arguments, and clearly explained why each claim fails. Moreover, Judge Frank finds her recommendations factually and legally correct. Magistrate Judge Wright correctly explained that the Eleventh Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 bar the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants acting in their official and individual capacities. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, the Magistrate Judge explained that his claims fail because Minnesota has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, nor has Congress abrogated immunity to Section 1983 claims. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Wright explained that the Plaintiff's requests for retrospective equitable injunctive relief must be connected to an ongoing violation of federal law and that while he makes the conclusory argument that the effects of his charges and conviction will last his entire life, the Complaint does not allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the charges and convictions are actually having an ongoing effect on him. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that all of the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the Defendants acting in their official capacities be dismissed. With respect to the Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief against the Defendants acting in their individual capacities, the Magistrate Judge correctly relied on several other courts to conclude that the Eleventh Amendment bars injunctive relief against the individual Defendants acting in their personal capacity. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that these claims be dismissed as well. While the Eighth Circuit has not yet decided the issue, Judge Frank agrees with Magistrate Judge Wright's analysis. The Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings; however, he merely restates the same arguments that the Magistrate Judge properly considered and rejected. Judge Frank finds no reason to depart from Magistrate Judge Wright's recommendations. The Magistrate Judge also addressed how each of the Plaintiff's claims fail for failure to state a claim for violation of his federal rights. Their Plaintiff's claims include: (1) retaliation; (2) a challenge to the constitutionality of certain disciplinary rules; (3) due process; (4) equal protection; (5) access to courts; and (6) conspiracy. Again, the Judge finds no reason to depart from her recommendation to dismiss these claims. Judge Frank further finds no reason to depart from the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that (i) the Plaintiff's individual capacity claims fail; (ii) the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the law and found that even if the Plaintiff's other claims did not fail, there is no basis for punitive damages; (iii) the Plaintiff's constitutional claims fail and the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (iv) there is no reason to depart from the Magistrate Judge's recommendations that the Plaintiff's constitutional claims fail. The Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge "ignored the claim" that the Defendants violated the adversarial process by keeping the details for their reply. The record reflects that this is clearly not the case. Judge Frank finds that the Magistrate Judge properly considered and rejected the Plaintiff's argument. Judge Frank agrees with her analysis and conclusion and finds no reason to depart from her recommendation to deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge ignored the context of his request for sanctions and reasserts his argument that Defendants deliberately mislead the court. Judge Frank finds that the Magistrate Judge properly considered and rejected the Plaintiff's argument, and that her recommendation is both factually and legally correct. Accordingly, Judge Frank finds no reason to depart from her recommendation. The Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge is incorrect because there are additional pleadings he intends to file, considerable evidence exists from which the retaliatory nature of the most recent transfer can be inferred, and the sanctions are different than his requested relief because they are necessary to restore the status quo which was intentionally torn asunder by the Defendants. Judge Frank understands that the Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation; however, her recommendation is both factually and legally correct. Accordingly, Judge Frank finds no reason to depart from it. After careful review of the Plaintiff's objections, Judge Frank finds that Magistrate Judge Wright's recommendations are thorough, well-supported, and grounded in law and fact. Accordingly, Judge Frank finds no reason to depart from the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to dismiss the Plaintiff's motions. Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, Judge Frank overruled Plaintiff Munt's objections to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright's Jan. 31, 2020 Report and Recommendation; and adopted the Report and Recommendation. Judge Frank (a) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (b) denied Plaintiff Munt's (i) Request for a Stay and Sanctions, (ii) Request for a Gag Order, (iii) Motion to Certify Class, (iv) Request for Sanctions, (v) Motion to Strike, and (vi) Request for Court Actions; and (c) dismissed without prejudice Munt's Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/nspkB4 from Leagle.com. Joel Munt, Plaintiff, pro se. Michelle Smith, OPH Warden, Tammy Wherley, former OPH AWA, Michael Costello, former STW Discipline Lt., David Reishus, OPH AWO, OPH Transfer Officer, Jeanne Michels, OPH Education Director, Sadie Jensen, former OPH Librarian, Eddie Miles, STW Warden, Victor Wanchena, STW AWA, Mike Warner, STW Discipline Lt. & Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants, represented by Alemayehu Z. Ditamo, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. NATERA INC: Judgment on Pleadings in Warren Police Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NATERA INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A155613 (Cal. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and entering judgment for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a class action against Natera and others under the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the documents issued in connection with Natera's initial public offering omitted material facts that were required by regulations or necessary to make the documents not misleading. Their primary contention is that the documents, which became effective on July 1, 2015 improperly touted Natera as 'rapidly growing,' amid a 'quarterly' revenue growth 'trend' with year-over-year revenue increases, while omitting Natera's material negative financial results for the second quarter of 2015. The second quarter had ended the day before, on June 30, 2015, and second quarter financial results had not yet been made public. The Plaintiffs are the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement system, which is an institutional investor, and individuals Mika Cahoj, M. Jim Ellis, and Van Nguyen, all of whom are suing on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Each Plaintiff claims to have purchased shares of Natera common stock "pursuant and/or traceable to" the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Natera's July 1, 2015 initial public stock offering. Natera is a genetic testing company that develops and commercializes non-invasive methods for analyzing DNA. Its primary product is Panorama, a prenatal screening test ("NIPT") for fetal chromosomal abnormalities that is based on a blood draw, rather than amniocentesis. In addition to Natera, the Plaintiffs sued eight individual Natera officers and directors and five underwriters. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint included three causes of action for violation of the Securities Act of 1933: securities fraud against all the Defendants under Section 11 for issuing an inaccurate and misleading Registration Statement; unlawful solicitation against all the Defendants under Section 12; and control person liability against the Natera Individuals under Section 15. The trial court sustained the Defendants' demurrer to the Section 11 cause of action with leave to amend, and sustained their demurrer to the Section 12 and 15 causes of action without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging their amended Section 11 cause of action. In compliance with a trial court order, the Defendants responded to the Amended Complaint by filing answers and moving for judgment on the pleadings, instead of demurring. The trial court granted the Defendants' motion, and judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the Defendants. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their Section 11 and Section 15 causes of action as alleged in the Amended Complaint and Complaint, respectively. The Appellate Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the omission of 2Q 2015 financial results rendered statements in the Registration Statement false or misleading. Their arguments to the contrary, and the legal authority on which they rely, are not persuasive. In the context of the Registration Statement as a whole, there is nothing false or misleading about the statement that Natera is "rapidly growing" or the statement that its "rapid growth of revenues" was based on the success of Panorama. The Appellate Court also concludes that the Amended Complaint does not adequately allege the Defendants were aware of interim or final results for 2Q 2015 at the time of the IPO. The Amended Complaint is replete with general allegations statements about Natera's use of cash basis accounting and the customary interactions between a pre-IPO company and its auditors and underwriters. But the Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts establishing that any of the defendants had actual knowledge of the 2Q 2015 financial results. Instead, they state that the Defendants "would have known" or "knew or should have known," or "knew or were reckless in not knowing" 2Q 2015 financial results. General and conclusory allegations such as these do not suffice to plead actual knowledge. In sum, the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any error in the trial court's dismissal of their Section 11 claim, the Appellate Court finds. As for the Section 15 cause of action against the Natera Individuals, the Appellate Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to allege a violation of Section 11. The failure to allege the required primary violation of the securities laws is fatal to the Plaintiffs' Section 15 cause of action. Accordingly, the Appellate Court need not consider whether the Complaint adequately alleged that the Natera Individuals are control persons. In light of the foregoing, the Appellate upheld the trial court's. The Respondents will recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 28, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/xoB5vz from Leagle.com. NATIONAL FUTURES: Customer Data Exposed, Kumaran Claims ------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED CUSTOMERS 1-100, OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED CTA'S 1-100, and NEFERTITI RISK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION; JANE DOE 1, COMPLIANCE OFFICER NFA; JANE DOE 2, COMPLIANCE OFFICER NFA; and TOM KADLEC, BOARD MEMBER NFA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03668-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Commodities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated customers who opened accounts at ADM Investor Services (ADMIS) during 2014, allege that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme with ADMIS since September 2014 up to the present, wherein the private futures account data, trading position details, and personal private data of commodities futures customers and commodity trading advisors (CTAs) were sold and/or distributed and gave fully disclosed access to the owners, employees, and affiliates of the disbarred futures clearing merchant, Vision Financial Markets, LLC, without customers' knowledge, permission and consent. Moreover, the scheme enabled by the National Futures Association (NFA), solicits millions of dollars of unauthorized fees and charges, estimated to total over $50 million, from ADMIS accounts to be used to make personal payments to Howard Rothman, Robert Boshnack and other Vision affiliates, across interstate lines in Stamford, Connecticut, and other financial benefits, which are fraudulently concealed from customers and CTAs prior to account opening. The illegal acts of the Defendants and ADMIS caused irreparable harm and damages to the Plaintiffs and Class members and directly and deliberately thwarted fair market competition at the expense of small customers and businesses. Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC was a minority women-owned small business, sole proprietor, in New York, New York. National Futures Association is a private, not-for profit organization incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its headquarters and principal place of business and domicile in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] NEWREZ LLC: Richards RESPA Suit Removed to District of Maryland --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MANDA RICHARDS and MATTHEW MALDONADO, On behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, (Filed April 13, 2020), was removed from the Maryland Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on May 22, 2020. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01282-ELH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert causes of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. For the alleged violations of RESPA, the Plaintiffs claim actual damages equal to the sums collected by Shellpoint, statutory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and attorney costs and fees. Plaintiff Richards is the owner of a property located in Montgomery County, Maryland. Plaintiff Maldonado owns a property in California secured by a mortgage from Countrywide Home Loans, now known as Bank of America, N.A. NewRez provides financial services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Narod, Esq. Joshua Dhyani, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1350 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 719-8271 Facsimile: (202) 719-8371 E-mail: anarod@bradley.com jdhyani@bradley.com NORTHEAST TREATMENT: Devine Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA and PMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE DEVINE and LAVAR TURNER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. NORTHEAST TREATMENT CENTERS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02417 (E.D. Pa., May 22, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Since July 1, 2019, the Defendant has paid Aftercare Workers time and one-half overtime compensation for some of their hours worked over 40 per week. Other overtime hours, however, have gone unpaid because the Defendant's administrators and supervisors refuse to approve overtime pay for hours that are overtly and necessarily worked by Aftercare Workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay them and the FLSA collective overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiff worked as Aftercare Workers for the Defendant. The Defendant is a behavioral health and social services agency operating through a contract with the City of Philadelphia and overseen by the City's Department of Human Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 PATENAUDE & FELIX: Carlos Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Brian Carlos filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Carlos v. Patenaude & Felix A.P.C., Case No. 3:14-cv-00921-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Carlos v. Patenaude & Felix A.P.C., Case No. 20-35466, 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 June 22, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 21, 2020; -- Appellant Brian Carlos' opening brief is due on August 31, 2020; -- Appellee Patenaude & Felix A.P.C.'s answering brief is due on September 30, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN CARLOS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: Bret Knewtson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRET KNEWTSON 3000 NE Stucki Avenue, Suite 230-M Hillsboro, OR 97124 Telephone: (503) 846-1160 Facsimile: (503) 922 3181 Email: bknewtson@yahoo.com - and - Mark Passannante, Esq. BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S. 1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1220 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 294-0910 Facsimile: (503) 243-2717 Email: Markpassannante@msn.com Defendant-Appellee PATENAUDE & FELIX A.P.C. is represented by: Peter D. Eidenberg, Esq. KEATING JONES HUGHES, PC 200 SW Market Street, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 222-9955 Email: peidenberg@keatingjones.com PORCELANA CORONA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fessler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mark Fessler, et al. v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, Case No. 4:19-CV-248, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the second amended complaint and class action seeks damages against the Defendant arising from the manufacturing and/or marketing defects of certain designated ceramic toilet tanks distributed, sold, and installed in the residences of the general public throughout the state of Texas and the United States. The lawsuit was originally filed by Steven and Joanna Cone as citizens of the state of Texas. The parties recently filed a Joint Motion for Partial Dismissal along with the appropriate Stipulation regarding resolution by agreement as to the Cones and Michael and Kimberly Aftosmes. The Plaintiffs allege that manufacturing defects affecting multiple models of toilet tanks designed, manufactured, marketed and distributed by Porcelana causes such tanks to spontaneously crack, causing extensive damage both to real and personal property. The appellate case is captioned as Mark Fessler, et al. v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, Case No. 20-40357, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MARK FESSLER, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, are represented by: Nathan Scott Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. Parkway Centre IV 2701 North Dallas Parkway Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (972) 403-0311 Email: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com Defendant-Appellant PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., formerly known as Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V., also known as Vortens, is represented by: Darrell L. Barger, Esq. HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER, L.L.P. 800 N. Shoreline Boulevard North Tower Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 866-8009 Email: dbarger@hartlinebarger.com - and - Angela Skaggs Gordon, Esq. HARTLINE BARGER, L.L.P. 141 E. Palace Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 336-5298 Email: agordon@hartlinebarger.com - and - Melissa Dorman Matthews, Esq. HARTLINE BARGER, L.L.P. 8750 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 369-2100 Email: mmatthews@hartlinebarger.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Scott, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-00267-MSD-LRL (W.D. Va., May 28, 2020), is brought to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards 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 PRA in customer service in Hampton, Virginia, from November 2017 until February 2020. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., is a debt collection company and operates several call centers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804-648-4848 Facsimile: 804-237-0413 Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.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 POST FOODS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Krommenhock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Post Foods, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Debbie Krommenhock, et al. v. Post Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-04958-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The questions presented regarding the Plaintiffs' burden in a deceptive practices case are: 1. That consumers commonly saw statements that were located in obscure places on the back or sides of a product package? 2. That consumers commonly understood the challenged statements in the way the Plaintiffs allege is deceptive? 3. That the Plaintiffs' damages model fits their theory of liability and measures only the damages that would flow from that theory? and 4. That the Plaintiffs' measurement of an alleged price premium accounts for the effect that changes in the product's supply would have on its market price? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs and class members were lured to purchase Post's products, centered mainly on packaging labels advertising its cereals as healthy food choices to obscure the dangers of added sugars. The complaint is a gigantic 193 pages and includes pictures of cereal boxes to demonstrate advertising and the products' labels. The complaint contends the sugar used in Post's cereals caused the Plaintiffs to suffer from unnecessary increased risks of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke and other chronic morbidity. The complaint alleges Post targets children and violates U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The lawsuit begins its argument with a scientific summary of adverse health effects excessive sugar consumption causes. Naming more than 50 cereals in the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege Post falsely represents its cereals are "healthy," "nutritious" or "wholesome," and that its cereals will "promote health, prevention of disease or weight loss." The lawsuit also argues Post conceals dangers of added sugar by advertising its cereals with labels such as "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" or "Natural Wildflower Honey." The complaint argues the nation has seen a rise in human sugar consumption, which produces cravings, withdrawals and chemical changes in the brain likened to those addicted to drugs, such as cocaine and alcohol. The appellate case is captioned as Debbie Krommenhock, et al. v. Post Foods, LLC, Case No. 20-80083, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DEBBIE KROMMENHOCK and STEPHEN HADLEY, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Email: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com Defendant-Petitioner POST FOODS, LLC, is represented by: Tarifa Belle Laddon, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 500-2090 Email: tarifa.laddon@faegredrinker.com - and - Nicholas James Nelson, Esq. BANCROFT PLLC 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 234-0090 - and - Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. Emily Zambrana, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-8138 Email: aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com emily.zambrana@faegredrinker.com POSTAL FLEET: Garner Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Drivers Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. POSTAL FLEET SERVICES, INC., VILANO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., AND THE STAGELINE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00523-O (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2020), seeks to recover for drivers unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that he was regularly scheduled six days a week for 18.58 hour shifts. The Defendants automatically deducted 9.83 hours from every shift for time spent waiting on-site or near the pick-up location, until the next load was ready for pick-up. He adds that as an hourly, non-exempt employee, he was not paid time and a half for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants failed to compensate drivers for Waiting Time and overtime to avoid paying him the total compensation he was due, he alleges. The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendants from July 2018 through March 2020. The Defendants are companies primarily engaged in transportation services for the United States Postal Service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence B. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON LAW 7500 San Felipe St., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 568-1723 Facsimile: (713) 965-4288 E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com PRO CUSTOM: Bid to Compel Discovery in Becker Suit Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PERRY BECKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-535-FtM-29NPM (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted in part, denied in part and rendered moot in part the Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court also (i) denied Non-Party Cody Becker's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition and Motion for Protective Order; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Protective Order to Allow for Videoconference or New Jersey Deposition. The Becker case is a putative class action concerning alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Pro Custom Solar, who markets and sells solar products and services, allegedly initiated calls and texts to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone to solicit sales. Plaintiff claims he registered his cellular telephone on the National Do Not Call Registry and never provided express consent or otherwise invited Defendant to contact him. The matter is before the Court on the following: (1) Motion to Compel Discovery; (2) Motion to Quash; and, (3) Motion for Protective Order. To resolve the outstanding discovery issues, the Court held a hearing on Feb. 21, 2020. At the Court's direction and before the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, which significantly narrowed the issues presented in the motion to compel. The putative class representative's son, Cody Becker, seeks to avoid deposition on the grounds of harassment. But at the hearing, the Plaintiff produced a declaration from Cody Becker concerning the consent issues related to his father's claim and implicating the potential individual inquiries necessary to resolve such issues for putative class members. The deposition, therefore, appears relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mizell denies the Motion to Quash. On a related note, attached as "Exhibit 3" to the Defendant's written opposition to the motion is a records search with personal identifiers that should have been redacted. The Magistrate Judge finds the Exhibit was not necessary to determine the motion and, consistent with Rule 5.2 and the Court's electronic filings manual, directs the Clerk of Court to strike and remove Exhibit 3 from the docket. The Defendant requests that the deposition of its Rule 30(b)(6) designee take place in New Jersey or be conducted by video conference. The Plaintiff argues that the deposition should be held in Orlando, Florida. As evidenced by the designee's declaration and as discussed during the hearing, the Defendant's principal place of business is New Jersey, the designee lives and works in New Jersey, and the designee does not travel to Florida for business. Furthermore, the parties' counsel are not located within this district, the financial burden on the defendant would not be insignificant, and neither the relationship of the parties nor the nature of the claim make it equitable for the designee, at this stage, to appear within the district for deposition. The Motion for Protective Order is therefore granted to the extent that the deposition of the Defendant's designee will be taken in New Jersey. The Magistrate Judge groups the Interrogatories and Requests for Production that remain in dispute by topic and ruling. First group is "Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10; Request for Production Nos. 5, 6, 14, 22." As narrowed by the parties at the time of the hearing, these requests concern the production of a call log for the Defendant's telemarketing calls related to the Defendant's "Gold Blended" campaigns, as well as the forms of consent obtained by the Defendant to place such calls. The Plaintiff seeks this information for purposes of class certification, asserting that it is germane to the issues of numerosity, ascertainably and the predominance of common over individual issues. In addition to determining the number of people called, Plaintiff seeks to confirm the feasibility of distinguishing between cellular and non-cellular phone numbers, identifying which phone numbers were on the do-not-call registry at the pertinent time, and matching the phone numbers to the name and address of putative class members. So as to the call log, the Magistrate Judge denied without prejudice the request pending the 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendant, with the Defendant admonished that the Court may require a continuation of the deposition in Florida should the deposition reveal that the call log could have been produced prior to the deposition with minimal effort and the numerosity and feasibility inquires outlined above could not be meaningfully explored with the designee without it. As for producing a representative sample of each form of consent obtained by the Defendant for the telemarketing calls associated with the Gold Blended campaigns, such a production not only appears relevant and proportional, but also likely to facilitate an efficient 30(b)(6) examination of the Defendant. The Defendant will either produce such samples at least two days prior to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of its designee, or it will furnish a declaration to the Plaintiff attesting to the lack of feasibility to produce samples of these consents prior to the currently-noticed deposition. To avoid further discovery-motion practice on these topics, however, the parties are encouraged to continue to confer about these issues, including the potential rescheduling of the 30(b)(6) deposition, so as to avoid any need for the designee to be produced more than once, and to jointly approach the Court about any scheduling-order modifications that might be necessary to facilitate the objective. Second group is "Interrogatory No. 11; Request for Production Nos. 12, 21." As narrowed by the parties at the time of the hearing, these requests concern the production by the Defendant of any contracts or other agreements with third parties that supplied telemarking leads for its Gold Blended campaigns. To the extent this production request relates to phone numbers contacted by Defendant during the proposed class period, it appears relevant and proportional, and the Defendant will therefore produce such documents at least two days prior to the 30(b)(6) deposition of its designee, and no later than March 7, 2020. Third group is "Request for Production Nos. 15, 16, 17." As narrowed by the parties at the time of the hearing, these requests concern scripts or training materials related to the Gold Blended campaigns and in use during the proposed class period. These production requests appear relevant and proportional, and the Defendant will therefore produce such documents at least two days prior to the 30(b)(6) deposition of its designee, and no later than March 7, 2020. Final group is "Request for Production Nos. 24, 25." As narrowed by the parties at the time of the hearing, these requests concern: documents sufficient to identify all user interfaces of the application You utilize to transmit/make Phone Calls; and documents sufficient to identify all user interfaces of the application You utilize to transmit/make the Subject Phone Call. To the extent they relate to telemarking calls made during the proposed class period and as part of the Gold Blended campaigns, these requests appear relevant and proportional. The Defendant will therefore produce such documents in the form of screen shots by March 7, 2020. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mizell denied the Motion to Quash, and the deposition of Cody Becker may go forward. The Judge granted the Motion for Protective Order to the extent that the deposition of the Defendant's designee will be taken in New Jersey, and denied in all other respects. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike and remove Exhibit 3, and indicate on the docket that that portion of Doc. 47-2 was stricken pursuant to the Order. For the reasons stated on the record and as set forth, the Magistrate Judge granted in part, denied in part and rendered moot in part the Motion to Compel Discovery. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/GjUbv8 from Leagle.com. Perry Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ignacio Hiraldo -- IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com -- IJH Law, Manuel Santiago Hiraldo -- mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- Hiraldo PA & Michael Eisenband -- MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com -- Eisenband Law, P.A. Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, Defendant, represented by Joshua Adam Migdal -- josh@markmigdal.com -- Mark Migdal & Hayden, Yaniv Adar -- yaniv@markmigdal.com -- Mark Migdal & Hayden & Thomas Joseph Cotton -- tjc@spsk.com -- Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP. PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Simon Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnathon Simon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03582 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, due to the Defendant's misleading letter that was used to collect a debt. The Plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to creditor Western Dental Services, Inc. (the "Debt"). That Debt was sought to be collected, along with many others, by debt collector PBCM. At the time PBCM sought to collect the Debt, the Debt was no longer enforceable through judicial means, according to the complaint. That is, the Plaintiff could not be sued for it, as the Statute of Limitations had expired. Nevertheless, PBCM sent Mr. Simon a boilerplate collection letter that did not inform him that the debt was no longer enforceable. Instead, the collection letter told him that he could "settle" the debt with them, suggesting that PBCM could, in fact, use the judicial process to enforce the debt. That same letter omitted certain mandatory disclosures. As a result, the Defendant's debt collection practices violate applicable statutes. The Defendant's letter fails to clear up the potential for confusion by failing to advise the Plaintiff that the Debt was outside the applicable statute of limitations period or that he could not be sued to collect it, according to the complaint. The Defendant's conduct is unfair and unconscionable, and is part of a debt collection practice designed to create a false sense of fear and urgency in the consumer in order to get consumers to make payment on time-barred debts. The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt and resides in Antioch, California. The Defendant handles 1st party collections, 3rd party collections, and the servicing of performing portfolios on behalf of its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN 501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 501-6550 Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Curtis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rachel Curtis filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Curtis v. Progressive Northern Insurance, Case No. 5:17-CV-01076-PRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Progressive allegedly and uniformly uses an automated computer program from Mitchell International called Work Center Total Loss (WCTL) to value first party total loss vehicle claims, according to a motion. Progressive's use of WCTL routinely provides lower base values than those from generally recognized industry sources, such as National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Ms. Curtis alleges. She contends that Progressive's use of WCTL violates Oklahoma law, breaches her contract with Progressive, and amounts to a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, for which she seeks recovery. The appellate case is captioned as Curtis v. Progressive Northern Insurance, Case No. 20-604, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner RACHEL CURTIS, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, is represented by: J. Shawn Spencer, Esq. Bradley C. West, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 West Highland Street P.O. Box 698 Shawnee, OK 74802-0698 Telephone: (405) 275-0040 Email: shawn@thewestlawfirm.com brad@thewestlawfirm.com - and - Jason Waddell, Esq. JASON WADDELL, PLLC 222 NW 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 232-5291 Email: jason@jasonwaddelllaw.com Defendant-Respondent PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Julia C. Barrett, Esq. James M. Brigman, Esq. Fisher K. Law, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Email: jbarrett@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com fklaw@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com - and - Dawn Michelle Goeres, Esq. Brad Leslie Roberson, Esq. ROBERSON, KOLKER, COOPER & GOERES 16408 Muirfield Place Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 606-3333 PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Pieczonka Appeals N.D. Ohio Order to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas Pieczonka filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Thomas Pieczonka v. Progressive Select Ins Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-02965, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services. The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Pieczonka v. Progressive Select Ins Co., Case No. 20-3537, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS J. PIECZONKA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0539 Email: mdann@dannlaw.com Defendant-Appellee PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq. Benjamin C. Sasse, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Email: jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Royalty Claims in 2020 Q3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Napster expects to pay valid claims on account of a class action lawsuit over unpaid royalties in the quarter of 2020, RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called "mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted musical works." On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019. The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be calculated on a claims-made basis. In May 2019, public notice was posted about the settlement informing purported class members that they could make claims or object to the settlement, and the claims period ended on December 31, 2019. The final calculation is not yet complete, but based on preliminary results, the claimed damages are not expected to be material. Valid claims are currently expected to be paid by Napster in the third quarter of 2020. On January 18, 2019, RealNetworks acquired an additional 42% interest in Rhapsody International, Inc. (doing business as Napster) which brought our aggregate ownership to 84% of Napster's outstanding equity, thus giving RealNetworks a majority voting interest. RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media. RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. REGIONS BANK: Hollins Sues in E.D. Missouri Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regions Bank. The case is styled as Shernise Hollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regions Bank, Case No. 4:20-cv-00697 (E.D. Mo., May 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Regions Financial Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in the Regions Center in Birmingham, Alabama. The Company provides retail banking and commercial banking, trust, stockbrokerage, and mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. Mohammed Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 581-5450 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Copyright Act Claims in Saint-Amour Junked ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES SAINT-AMOUR and ALENA IVLEVA a/k/a JERRRA BLUES, d/b/a Satorii, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE RICHMOND ORGANIZATION, INC. and LUDLOW MUSIC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-4464 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Pastel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to substitute an unnamed person or persons as Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that the Defendants do not own valid copyrights to the iconic American song "This Land is Your Land", which, in their view, is in the public domain. They allege that Woody Guthrie wrote a version of the lyrics in 1940 and put it to the melody of a pre-existing composition. They claim that Guthrie published the work in a songbook in 1945 that bore the legend "Copyright 1945 W. Guthrie", but which was never registered with the Copyright Office. They claim that any copyright that may have once existed expired on Dec. 31, 1973. The Plaintiffs also present an alternative theory in which the copyright was divested in 1951. They assert that a 1956 copyright registration is invalid because Guthrie claimed to author the Song's music but, they allege, he did not. They make additional claims of invalidity about other applications for registration in 1970 and 1972 and a renewal in 2000. The Plaintiffs also seek the return of the unlawful licensing fees collected by the Defendants. They allege that they complied with the requirements of the Copyright Act to obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute a musical work by "digital phonorecord" delivery. Pursuant to the requirements of the statute, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendants $45.50 for a license to produce and distribute 500 copies of the Song and the Plaintiffs recorded and made it available for sale. The relief the Plaintiffs seek includes restitution of all fees paid to the Defendants, directly or indirectly through their agents, to use the Song. The Plaintiffs state that they wish to distribute a recording with the same lyrics and a different melody to the Song, and that they desire to produce a music video of the Song. However, they fear enforcement of the Defendants' purported copyrights. Among other relief, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants have no rights to the Song enforceable under the Copyright Act. The late Judge Deborah A. Batts concluded that all of the Plaintiffs' state law claims relating to the Song were preempted by the Copyright Act. Judge Batts otherwise denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Based upon events occurring after Judge Batts's March 27, 2019 decision, the Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint asserting that there is no longer a live case or controversy and hence that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. They rely principally on a broadly-worded covenant not to sue the Plaintiffs, the refund of a compulsory mechanical licensing fee ($45.50), and the Supreme Court's decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. Saint-Amour and Ivleva oppose the motion and seek to substitute an unnamed person or persons as Plaintiffs. Having reviewed the covenant not to sue, Judge Pastel concludes that it is extremely broad, covers past, present and future conduct by the Plaintiffs, their predecessors, successors, assigns and a host of others. The Defendants have met their burden of showing that they could not reasonably be expected to resume their efforts to enforce against the Plaintiffs any right they may have under the copyright laws relating to the Song. The possibility that the Plaintiffs may have a right to claim attorneys' fees does not save their underlying copyright claims from dismissal. At this juncture, the Judge does not need to decide whether the Plaintiffs are, indeed, prevailing parties under section 505 and otherwise entitled to attorneys' fees. Rule 54(d)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a claim for attorneys' fees to be made by motion filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment. The invocation of Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., adds nothing to the Plaintiffs' argument. The Judge holds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Rule 23 is a procedural mechanism that is limited in its reach by the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 and Rule 82, Fed. R. Civ. P. The invocation of Rule 23 in the text of a complaint cannot insulate the putative class representatives from a claim that the controversy has become moot. Finally, Judge Pastel holds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, including for the purpose of substituting party-plaintiffs. It has no power to add a new and different plaintiff to cure the mootness of the existing action. In the absence of a live case or controversy, Judge Pastel granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims under the Copyright Act. The Judge denied the motion to substitute a party. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 28, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/CHX9be from Leagle.com. James Saint-Amour, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Alena Ivleva, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark C. Rifkin -- melwani@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Gloria Kui Melwani -- melwani@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Randall Scott Newman -- Newman@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. The Richmond Organization, Inc. & Ludlow Music, Inc, Defendants, represented by Paul V. LiCalsi -- PLiCalsi@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan, LLP & Ofer Reger -- OReger@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP. RJ VAN DRUNEN: Morales Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Alondra Villagomez Morales, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RJ Van Drunen & Sons Inc. doing business as: Van Drunen Farms, Case No. 2020 L 49, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Kankakee County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on May 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02145-CSB-EIL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. R. J. Van Drunen & Sons, Inc., produces fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. The Company provides grapes, apple, blackberry, banana, herbs, as well as offers candy fillings, dessert and bakery mixes, breakfast cereals, snack mixes and stand-alone snacks.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Takayuki X Ono, Esq. William Kyle Walther, Esq. Alexander Colin Wexler, Esq. GOLDBERG KOHN LTD 55 E Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-4000 Fax: (312) 332-2196 Email: takayuki.ono@goldbergkohn.com kyle.walther@goldbergkohn.com colin.wexler@goldbergkohn.com RYDER SYSTEM: Artificially Inflates Earnings, Key West Fund Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEY WEST POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., ROBERT E. SANCHEZ, ART A. GARCIA, and SCOTT T. PARKER, Case No. 0:20-cv-60997-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2020), seeks claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Defendants artificially inflated the Company's earnings. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased shares of Ryder common stock between July 23, 2015, and February 13, 2020, inclusive. As part of Ryder's truck-leasing model, Ryder assigns residual values to its trucks for depreciation purposes and then sells those vehicles at the end of their useful lives. For each year between 2011 and 2016, Ryder adjusted the residual values of certain assets upwards between $10 million and $40 million. Thus, the higher a company reports its assets' residual value, the less depreciation the company must record per year, which has the effect of increasing earnings on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In total, Ryder's upward adjustments resulted in a cumulative benefit of $158 million, or $1.92 per share, over this six-year span. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented Ryder's true financial condition by overstating the residual value of its trucking fleet, which allowed the Company to record smaller depreciation expense on those assets each year, and artificially inflated Ryder's earnings. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of these misrepresentations, shares of Ryder common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Then, on February 13, 2020, the Company reported that, as a result of the significant reductions to the residual value of its fleet, it had incurred a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for 2019 plus a loss of approximately $58 million on the sale of used vehicles. The Company also announced that, for 2020, it expected to incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet due to the reductions in residual value plus an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In response to these disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 20% over two trading days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share. Key West is a public pension fund for the benefit of active and retired police officers and firefighters of the City of Key West, Florida. Key West purchased Ryder common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Ryder is a global provider of transportation and supply chain management solutions. The Company operates through three segments. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company. As of January 31, 2020, Ryder had over 53 million shares of common stock outstanding, owned by hundreds or thousands of investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Tableau Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that a trial court has not yet set a trial date in the class action suit related to the Company's Merger deal with Tableau Software, Inc. On August 1, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 9, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Tableau Software, Inc. (Tableau), which provides a self-service analytics platform that enables users to easily access, prepare, analyze, and present findings in their data. In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed against Tableau and two of its now former executive officers. The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (the "Scheufele Action"). The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on October 17, 2017. In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements regarding Tableau's business and operations by allegedly failing to disclose, among other things, that product launches and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting Tableau's competitive position and profitability. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two more of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which was denied in February 2019. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC in March 2019, and subsequently amended their answer in April 2019. On January 15, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties have completed fact discovery and are engaged in expert discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date. Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions with a focus on customer relationship management. The company offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress, forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts, and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SANITARIOS LAMOSA: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Cone Liability Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Steven Cone, et al. v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. de C.V., Case No. 4:17-CV-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' DTPA, Negligent Failure to Warn, and Breach of Implied Warranty Claims ("Substantive Claims Motion"); and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Missing Evidence. The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Class Action is the operative complaint. The toilet tanks at issue were manufactured, designed, produced, and distributed by Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as Porcelana Corona. As a result of their claimed damages, the Plaintiffs have alleged four causes of action against the Defendant: (1) strict products liability; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) negligence; and (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"). They seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, including exemplary damages, treble damages under the DTPA, and attorneys' fees. They also seek to represent a putative class defined as all owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464, #3412, #3404, #3425, and #3436, manufactured by the Defendant between 2004-2012, and the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class Certification is currently pending before the Court. The appellate case is captioned as Steven Cone, et al. v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V., Case No. 20-40358, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN CONE, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, are represented by: Nathan Scott Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. Parkway Centre IV 2701 North Dallas Parkway Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (972) 403-1133 Facsimile: (972) 403-0311 Email: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com Defendant-Appellant PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. is represented by: Darrell L. Barger, Esq. HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER, L.L.P. 800 N. Shoreline Boulevard North Tower Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 866-8009 Email: dbarger@hartlinebarger.com - and - Angela Skaggs Gordon, Esq. HARTLINE BARGER, L.L.P. 141 E. Palace Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 336-5298 Email: agordon@hartlinebarger.com - and - Melissa Dorman Matthews HARTLINE BARGER, L.L.P. 8750 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 369-2100 Email: mmatthews@hartlinebarger.com SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Roehrkasse Class Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Guernica Makari Roehrkasse, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Savannah College of Art and Design doing business as: Savannah College of Art and Design, Case No. SPCV20-00377-MO, was removed from Georgia Superior Court, Chatham County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on May 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00116-RSB-CLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Savannah College of Art and Design is a private art school with locations in Savannah, Georgia; Atlanta; Hong Kong; and Lacoste, France.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kirby G. Mason, Esq. HUNTER MACLEAN, EXLEY & DUNN, P.C. 200 E. Saint Julian Street P.O. Box 9848 Savannah, GA 31412-0048 Phone: (912) 236-0261 Fax: (912) 236-4936 Email: kmason@huntermaclean.com SAVASENIORCARE ADMIN: Faces Farhan Employment Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savaseniorcare Administrative Services LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Naomi Farfan, Terri Richter, and Lollie Webster, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Savaseniorcare Administrative Services LLC; Savaseniorcare Consulting LLC; Savaseniorcare LLC; SSC Carmichael Management Company LP; SSC Carmichael Operating GP LLC; SSC Carmichel Operating Company LP; SSC Hickory 13th Operating Company; SSC Hickory East Operating Company LLC; SSC Oakland Excell Operating Company LP; SSC Pittsburg Operating Company LP; SSC San Jose Operating Company LP; and SSC Tarzana Operating Company LP, Case No. 34-2020-00278767-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 15, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. The Defendants operate health care facilities.[BN] SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Marti Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vanessa Marti filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Marti v. Schreiber/Cohen, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-40164-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an order on Jan. 2, 2020, certifying these two amended classes: (1) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class: "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of the filing this action"; and (2) Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act Class: "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of the filing the action." The Court said, "A class action would promote uniformity of decision and save time and expense. The main issues in the action and the effect of any arbitration provision on the ability to raise the claim--are common to all members of the classes and should be answered in the same way." The Court also found it significant that an individual action likely would not be economically feasible for each putative class member. And while a class action does admittedly reduce the possible recovery each debtor is entitled to receive, given the amendments to the classes, the reduction will be much less drastic than Defendants contend. Thus, on balance, the Court found that Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating compliance with the superiority requirement with respect to the amended class definitions. The appellate case is captioned as Marti v. Schreiber/Cohen, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-1518, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form is due on June 9, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VANESSA MARTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 E Washington St., Ste. 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 Email: rand@horwitzlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Brine, Esq. BRINE CONSUMER LAW 100 Grove St., Ste. 210 Worcester, MA 01605 Telephone: (508) 556-1899 Email: cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com - and - Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD A. YARBROUGH PO Box 11842 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33339-1842 Telephone: (954) 537-2000 Email: don@donyarbrough.com Defendants-Appellees SCHREIBER/COHEN, LLC, et al., are represented by: Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 53 State St., 27th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7012 Email: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com SEAM GROUP: Trafficked Workers to U.S., Peregrina Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL AMEZCUA PEREGRINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAM GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01032-SO (N.D. Ohio, May 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for trafficking the Plaintiff and other highly educated guest workers in the U.S. to work into entry-level positions in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), failing to pay them legally compliant minimum wages and overtime time pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, denying them equal rights on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and/or ancestry in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, discriminating them on the basis of their race and/or origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and wrongfully terminating the Plaintiff on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a guest worker in the position of field engineer throughout the U.S. from approximately March 15, 2018 to approximately March 14, 2019. SEAM Group LLC is a provider of workplace safety training services based in Beachwood, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. Robert L. Schug, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Nicole J. Schladt, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: bailey@nka.com schug@nka.com aprakash@nka.com nschladt@nka.com SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kennington Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY KENNINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00177-JRG (E.D. Tex., June 2, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Kennington was employed by the Defendant as nurse. Select Employment Services, Inc. provides employment services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com - and - Kenneth C. Goolsby, Esq. BOON CALK ECHOLS COLEMAN & GOOLSBY, PLLC 1800 N.W. Loop 281, Suite 303 Longview, TX 75604 Telephone: (903) 759-2200 Facsimile: (903) 759-3306 E-mail: casey.goolsby@boonlaw.com SIERRA PACIFIC: Faces Deguzman Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company Inc. The case is captioned as J. Deguzman and M. Llado, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company Inc., Case No. 34-2020-00278744-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 15, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment related laws. A case management conference will be held on Dec. 3, 2020. Sierra Pacific provides mortgage lending services. The Company offers loans to permanent investors, individuals, and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN Los Angeles, CA 90001 Telephone: (415) 877-5901 E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com SK ENERGY: Faces Kravitz Suit Over Gas Price Antitrust Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT KRAVITZ and NATASHA SARAVANJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:20-cv-03427-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of all consumers, who purchased gasoline at gas stations in the State of California between February 2015 and December 2017, against the Defendants alleging gas price anticompetitive price manipulation. In February 2015, an explosion occurred at a gasoline refinery in Torrance, California. At the time of the explosion, the Torrance refinery supplied about 10% of California's refined gasoline. According to the complaint, the Defendants' anticompetitive price manipulation caused the Plaintiffs--and other California gas purchasers who make up the proposed class in this action--to pay supra-competitive prices for gas for many months after the market effects of the Torrance explosion subsided. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants acted unlawfully for their own profit and to the detriment of gasoline purchasers statewide. All of these acts were committed in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy to raise, fix, and maintain the published spot market price of gasoline, eliminate market risk, conceal the scheme, and share unlawfully gained profits. The Plaintiffs seek treble damages under California antitrust law. The Plaintiffs purchased gas for their vehicle between February 2015 and December 2017. Mr. Kravitz owns a real estate business, "Scott Kravitz Separate Property LLC," formed in Arizona with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Plaintiff Kravitz's real estate business requires extensive car travel to his properties. Plaintiff Natasha Saravanja is a resident of San Francisco, California. The Defendants are gas and oil companies.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. 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 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com SMARTGUARD INC: Faces Ortega Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smartguard Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Alicia Ortega, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. Smartguard Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00278712-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 15, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Smartguard is a California based provider of uniformed security and patrol services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com SPECTRUM CHARTERS: Alexander Files ERISA Suit in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- Travis Alexander, Jessica Alexander and Doris Seelye, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spectrum Charters, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01127 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2020), seeks appropriate equitable relief, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and further relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985. Travis Alexander worked for Spectrum Charters from November 2018 to February 10, 2020, when he was terminated. His wife, Jessica Alexander, and child are beneficiaries in Spectrum's insurance plan. Seelye's husband was a former employee of Spectrum. Plaintiffs lost their insurance coverage and incurred medical bills, due to Spectrum's deficient COBRA election notice. Spectrum allegedly did not inform Plaintiffs to enroll in continuation coverage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon Hill, Esq. WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com STATE FARM: Tufano Appeals Auto Insurance Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Paul Tufano filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Paul Tufano v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., Case No. 2:18-cv-03281-MCE-DB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the automobile insurance policy the Plaintiff purchased from State Farm does not comply with all requirements of California law. Specifically, California law requires that a policy of insurance indemnify the insured from loss, damage or liability. Tufano contends that at the time State Farm marketed, advertised, and sold its policy as "insurance," it did not intend to indemnify insureds, such as Tufano, for all elements of loss, damage, or liability as required by California law. Rather, State Farm effectively sold Tufano a promise only to pay for certain repairs, subject to State Farm's sole discretion, under the guise of selling Tufano "insurance." State Farm's insurance policy--provided to Tufano only after he had purchased such "insurance"--was drafted in such a manner that a reasonable consumer, such as Tufano, would not understand that State Farm was providing something less than the "insurance" promised through State Farm's marketing efforts, which were likely to deceive Tufano and California consumers. State Farm hid its "fine print" exclusions from its customers, only providing its laundry list of exclusions to the insured after the insured had purchased coverage. The appellate case is captioned as Paul Tufano v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., Case No. 20-15995, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Paul Tufano's opening brief is due on July 20, 2020; -- Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's answering brief is due on August 19, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL TUFANO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Montie S. Day, Esq. DAY LAW OFFICES 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B-482 Reno, NV 89521 Telephone: (208) 280-3766 Email: msdayesq@aol.com - and - Mark Sparks, Esq. FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP 350 Pine Street, Suite 1440 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 832-9700 Email: mark@thefergusonlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Email: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com - and - Frank Falzetta, Esq. Jennifer Marie Hoffman, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (213) 617-4194 Email: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Leo Balks at Proposed Sale to A Menarini --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LEON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN BERGSTEIN, RON BENTSUR, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, DANIEL HUME, MARK SARD, and KENNETH ZUERBLIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-03931 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the public stockholders of Stemline against the Company and its Board of Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the proposed acquisition of Stemline by A. Menarini--Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l. On May 4, 2020, the Company announced that Menarini intended to commence a tender offer in which Menarini would seek to acquire all the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a total potential consideration of $12.50 per share, representing an upfront payment of $11.50 and one non-tradable Contingent Value Right (CVR) that entitles the holder to an additional $1.00 in cash per share upon completion of the first sale of ELZONRIS in any EU5 country after European Commission approval (the Tender Offer). The Tender Offer commenced on May 12, 2020, when Menarini filed a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Also on May 12, 2020, the Board authorized the filing of an alleged materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC, recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on June 9, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or misleading because it fails to disclose certain inputs underlying certain valuation methodologies employed by the Company's financial advisors PJT Partners LP and BofA Securities, Inc. These omissions render the projected financial disclosures and the summary of the fairness opinion in the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Tender Offer unless, and until, the financial material information is disclosed to Stemline shareholders sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the Tender Offer or, in the event the Tender Offer is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws. The Plaintiff is and has been the owner of shares of Stemline common stock. Stemline is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel oncology therapeutics. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com TETRA TECH: Brown et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- LAGARION BROWN, ROY JACKSON, YAPHETT SAUNDERS, ISAAC SAUNDERS, HAKEEM ALLAMBIE, and NICHLON GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. TETRA TECH, INC.; JESCO ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-00544 (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to provide timely and complete meal and rest periods or pay additional wages in lieu thereof, failure to pay all overtime wages owed, and failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District in California as non-exempt employees. Tetra Tech, Inc. is a consulting and engineering services firm based in Pasadena, California. The company provides consulting, engineering, program management, and construction management services in the areas of water, environment, infrastructure, resource management, energy, and international development. Jesco Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc. is an environmental services company with principal place of business in Jennings, Louisiana and conducts business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Leanna Marie Sac, 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 LMSac@TheMMLawFirm.com TEXAS PRIDE: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL SCHEVE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TEXAS PRIDE FUELS, LTD., Case No. 7:19-cv-00248-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's Motion for conditional certification; 2. directing the parties to confer in an attempt to agree upon the content and form of notice as well as an appropriate manner for distributing it; 3. directing the Defendant, if the parties cannot agree on the content, form, and distribution of notice, to file any remaining objections to the Plaintiff's proposed notice on or before June 12, 2020. 4. denying the Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling; 5. directing the parties to submit scheduling recommendations regarding the remaining proceedings at the conclusion of the notice period or no later than October 16, 2020. The Court conditionally certified this class: "All hourly paid fuel technicians and automated fuel system operators employed by Defendant in the three years preceding the issuance of the Order conditionally certifying this class." The Court said the Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that aggrieved individuals exist; those aggrieved individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant respects given the claims and defenses asserted; and those individuals want to opt in to the lawsuit.[CC] TIVITY HEALTH: Court Raises Concerns in Lackawanna Modified Motion ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LACKAWANNA CHIROPRACTIC P.C., a New York professional corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIVITY HEALTH SUPPORT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-00649-LJV-JJM (W.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has issued an interim order on additional issues in considering the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Modified Class Action Settlement. In a Dec. 26, 2019 order available at https://tinyurl.com/tkdvnn3 from Leagle.com, the New York Court denied preliminary approval of the class action settlement and referred back the case to Judge McCarthy for future proceedings. Before the Court now is a Modified Motion. While the Modified Motion addresses several of the concerns raised in his Aug. 29, 2019 Report and Recommendation (adopted by District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo on Dec. 26, 2019), Judge McCarthy continues to question whether the Court will likely be able to: (i) approve the proposal under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] Rule 23(e)(2); and (ii) certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal -- findings which must be made before preliminary approval can be granted. Moreover, in reviewing the Modified Motion, additional issues have occurred to the Judge, which he did not previously raise. The Settlement Agreement defines the settlement class as all individuals and entities within the United States who were sent a Tivity Fax by or on behalf of Tivity recruiting a provider offering chiropractic services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, acupuncture, massage, and/or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) services to join a Tivity network. However, that definition does not exclude those who may not have been injured by receiving the faxes in question, either because they consented to that receipt, or because they had an established business relationship with Tivity and the fax which they received contained the opt-out notice specified in 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(2)(D), such as the notice contained in the fax sent to the Plaintiff. While the Amended Complaint alleges that neither the Plaintiff nor any class member consented to receive the faxes in question, Tivity denies those allegations. Therefore, the Court must probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, satisfying itself that Rule 23 compliance may be demonstrated through evidentiary proof. In an Interim Order dated May 12, 2020, available at https://is.gd/XQjuRI from Leagle.com, Judge McCarthy raises his concerns on the Modified Motion. The Court has concerns with respect to whether the proposed settlement treats class members equitably relative to each other pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2)(D). First, the class definition has no time limit, and therefore could conceivably include members whose claims are barred by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) four-year statute of limitations. However, if the Plaintiff can confirm that each of the faxes at issue was sent within four years of the commencement of the action, that concern will be alleviated. Secondly, the Court asks why the Settlement Agreement allows only one claim per fax number, rather than one claim per violation of the TCPA. Third, the Court asks why the Modified Motion does not account for the possibility that one or more class members may have sustained "actual monetary loss" in an amount greater than statutory damages of $500 per violation. Fourth, the Court asks what inquiry the class counsel conducted to conclude that no class member would be entitled to treble damages under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3). Finally, since the Plaintiff has not ruled out the possibility that some class members may have either consented to receive the faxes in question, or that they may have had a business relationship with Tivity and have received faxes containing the opt-out notice like that sent to the Plaintiff, the Court asks whether it is appropriate to grant the same relief to all the class members. Finally, the Magistrate Judge also has concerns regarding the content of the settlement notice and the method of its distribution. First, the notice will only be mailed to class members. The Judge wonders why it is not also being faxed to the numbers to which the original faxes were sent. The Court also has concerns on whether the Notice is satisfactory. First, the Court notes that the notice will only be mailed to class members and wonders why it is not also being faxed to the numbers to which the original faxes were sent. Secondly, the Court notes that the Settlement Agreement states that the initial notice is to be mailed on a postcard, with a more detailed "long-form" notice to follow only upon request by a class member. By "postcard," the Court asks whether the Plaintiff means the form at [54-2], p. 33 of 180 (CM/ECF pagination). If so, that form does not state that a long-form notice is available upon request. Third, the Court notes that neither the postcard nor the long-form notice mention that the TCPA also allows recovery for actual damages; and although both forms describe limits on the amount of attorneys' fees and service award which will be sought, the Settlement Agreement itself provides no such limits. The parties are thus ordered to respond in writing, without delay, to the concerns raised in the Court's Interim Order. Lackawanna Chiropractic P.C., a New York professional corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi R. Kaufman - kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Stefan Louis Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.,11 Broadway Ste 615, New York, NY 10004-1490. Tivity Health Support, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Emma Jane O'Connor - eoconnor@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon M. Porcellio - sporcellio@bsk.com, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC & David C. Layden - dlayden@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice. TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Shoemaker Liability Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lenard Shoemaker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00869-JEJ (M.D. Pa., May 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as motor vehicle product liability for breach of contract. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 - and - Noah Axler, Esq. AXLER GOLSICH, LLC 1520 Locust Street, Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 534-7400 Email: naxler@axgolaw.com TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Murell Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Murrell v. Transamerica Agency Network, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02559-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 20, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly Agency Coordinator from March 2016 to March 2020. She was paid on an hourly basis where her pay was reduced or increased based on the quantity of her work performed. She routinely worked more than 40 hours per week while employed by the Defendant. The Defendant failed to compensate her for one and half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, she contends. Transamerica is a marketing group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com TZUMI ELECTRONICS: Misrepresents mAh of Power Banks, Talley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Talley and Lori Ervin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TZUMI ELECTRONICS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04074 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to seek redress for its unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in misrepresenting the milliampere-hours of its power bank products. Consumers, as a result of the modern lifestyle, are increasingly dependent on smart phones, tablets and laptop computers--portable electronic devices ("PEDs"). Like any electronic device, PEDs require power. Consumers must periodically recharge their PEDs which may be difficult if no outlet is available. To solve that problem, technology companies like Defendant TZUMI Electronics LLC, market and sell portable chargers, also known as power banks. A power bank's ability to charge PEDs is measured in mAh. A power bank with a higher mAh has an enhanced ability to recharge PEDs compared to a power bank with a lower mAh--in short, it promises to deliver more "juice." According to the complaint, consumers prefer and are willing to pay more for power banks with a higher mAh. Technology companies are aware of this. One such company is TZUMI. TZUMI markets and sells a variety of models of power banks (which do not materially differ except to the extent they have different mAh ratings) hereafter referred to as the Products. The various Product models TZUMI sells include (but are not limited to) the PocketJuice models with mAh representations: 5,000, 8,000, 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000. Apart from the represented mAh amounts, there is no material difference among TZUMI's Products. All of the Products are sold using a prominent and false representation that they have a certain mAh when in fact they all have less. For profit and a higher market share, TZUMI exploits consumers' preferences for power banks with higher mAh. TZUMI intentionally deceives consumers by misrepresenting the amount of power its Products can transfer to PEDs, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that TZUMI advertises its Products as delivering more mAh than its Products are able to provide. The Plaintiffs relied on TZUMI's misrepresentations when they each bought a Pocket Juice Portable Charger 4000mAh. TZUMI labels the Pocket Juice as having 4,000 mAh; however, the Pocket Juice never could and cannot deliver 4,000 mAh, the Plaintiffs assert. As a result, Ms. Talley and Ms. Ervin paid premium for a TZUMI Product that did not work as represented and warranted, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are individual consumers, who bought the Pocket Juice. TZUMI manufactures, markets, and distributes a number of models of Power Banks for sale nationwide, including through major retailers, such as Walmart and Amazon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone 914-298-3290 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and – William F. Cash III, Esq. Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Brenton J. Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone 850-435-7059 Email: bcash@levinlaw.com mschultz@levinlaw.com bgoodman@levinlaw.com UNITED ASSOCIATION: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Poe ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Michael D. Poe, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Michael Poe, et al. v. United Assn. of Journeyman, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-667, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Louisiana contract law. The lawsuit is brought over alleged breach of the terms of an employee benefits plan for the purpose of compelling the Defendants to reinstate the Health Reimbursement Accounts promised, and for an accounting, recovery of damages, costs, and attorney fees incurred as a consequence of their failure to do so. The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of those whose HRAs the Defendants have wrongfully terminated and, thus, withheld benefits due to them via previous employment engagements. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Poe, et al. v. United Assn. of Journeyman, et al., Case No. 20-30337, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL D. POE, RICKY R. HUGGINS, and PATRICK SCHEXNIDER, All others similarly situated; Individually on behalf of United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States of America AFL-CIO Local 198 Health and Welfare Plan, are represented by: James Edward Sudduth, III, Esq. SUDDUTH & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 1109 Pithon Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 480-0101 Facsimile: (337) 419-0507 Email: james@saa.legal Defendants-Appellees LOUIS L. ROBEIN, III, MARIA C. CANGEMI, and ROBEIN, URANN, SPENCER, PICARD & CANGEMI, A.P.L.C., are represented by: James Huey Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW PARTNERS, L.L.C. 2448 Johnston Street P.O. Box 52124 Lafayette, LA 70505 Telephone: (337) 761-6025 Email: jimgibson@gibsonlawpartners.com UNITED STATES: BOP Faces Sullivan Civil Rights Suit in D. Hawaii ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. The case is styled as Leihinahina Sullivan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated inmates detained at the Honolulu Federal Detention Center v. Federal Bureau of Prisons; Annelizabeth Card, in her official capacity as Acting Warden, Case No. 1:20-cv-00249-DKW-KJM (D. Haw., May 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as prisoner: civil rights. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals. The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Honolulu Federal Detention Center, in Honolulu, Hawaii, appears pro se.[BN] UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Reopen Jenkins Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Appeal to Reopen his Class Action Lawsuit in the case captioned LEWIS CHARLES JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. RONALD REAGEN, Defendants, Civ. No. 18-00485 LEK-RT, (D. Haw.). Pro se petitioner Lewis Charles Jenkins filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody on December 10, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the magistrate judge issued his Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss with Prejudice Petition under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("F&R"). In the F&R, the magistrate judge found that Jenkins had failed to demonstrate that he was in custody or imprisoned, instead finding that he was homeless and staying at the Institute for Human Services. On January 7, 2019, the Court issued an order adopting the F&R, and the Clerk's Office entered the Judgment in a Civil Case (the "Judgment"). Jenkins did not file an appeal from the Judgment. On May 11, 2020, Jenkins submitted a document ("5/11/20 Letter") stating that he "would [like] to file an appeal too reopen [his] class action lawsuit." The Court has considered the 5/11/20 Letter as a non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.1(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii ("Local Rules"). The Court liberally construes Jenkins's 5/11/20 Letter as a motion for relief from the January 2019 Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The Court finds that the 5/11/20 Letter is untimely with regard to Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) because it was brought more than a year after entry of the Judgment. There is no indication that the Judgment is void, satisfied, released, discharged, reversed, vacated, or inequitable as required for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(4) and (5). Finally, Jenkins has not established any injury or circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with his claims as required under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court points out. Accordingly, the Court rules that Jenkins's 5/11/20 Letter is denied to the extent it constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the Judgment, to the extent it seeks a certificate of appealability, and to the extent the 5/11/20 Letter itself constitutes an appeal of the Judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yah7joe5 from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Student's Lawsuit Seeks Tuition Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Berkeley student has filed a class action lawsuit against the University of California alleging students are entitled to spring 2020 semester tuition refunds due to the COVID-19 pandemic campus closure. Noah Ritter, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint April 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Division against The Regents of The University of California, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Ritter is an undergraduate student at University of California Berkeley and alleges that he and other students are entitled to tuition refunds for the Spring 2020 semester because of the school's campus closure due to the coronavirus pandemic. Ritter claims the university is eligible to receive federal stimulus funding for support yet students have been deprived of campus activities, facilities and in-person instruction. The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, trial by jury, interest and all other proper relief. They are represented by John Bohren of Bohren Law in San Diego and Eric Poulin and Roy Willey of The Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC in Charleston, South Carolina. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Division case number 3:20-CV-02925-JCS [GN] UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: FIU Student Files Class Action Over Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Saunders, writing for WJCT, reports that alleging "inferior" online classes after campuses closed this spring because of the coronavirus, a Florida International University student has filed what is at least the third potential class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for students in the state university system. Attorneys for Sarah Fagundez, an FIU graduate student from Miami, filed the lawsuit on May 12 in Leon County circuit court against the university system's Board of Governors. It came a day after a similar lawsuit was filed in federal court against the University of Florida Board of Trustees and a little more than a week after another case was filed against the Board of Governors in circuit court. Fagundez contends that she and other students throughout the university system should receive refunds of portions of tuition and fees that they paid. Students were shifted to online learning in March to try to prevent the spread of the virus, and classes will remain online during the summer. While the details of the lawsuits vary somewhat --- the first two cases, for example, focus only on the spring semester, while Fagundez also raises arguments about summer classes --- their thrust is the same: Students did not get everything they paid for and should receive reimbursements. "Plaintiff (Fagundez) does not impugn defendant for taking measures to protect the public health; but defendant must acknowledge that the education and services it now provides to students throughout the university system lack the full value of those for which plaintiff and the class paid," The May 12 lawsuit against the Board of Governors said. "Not only is a fully online college experience inferior, socially and academically, to the in-person experience for which plaintiff and the class paid; but the university system's ersatz online courses now offered to students are inferior to online courses that were conceived as such in the first instance." University officials scrambled this spring to shut down campuses and move to all-online courses. The crisis also has created uncertainty about whether classes will be held in-person or online in the fall and is causing financial concerns for universities. The suit filed by Fagundez and the federal lawsuit filed on May 11 by Dylan Egleston against the University of Florida trustees contend students are entitled to reimbursement of portions of tuition and fees, which include such things as athletic fees and transportation fees. Fagundez, for example, paid $7,880 in tuition and fees for the spring semester, according to her lawsuit. The lawsuit filed in Leon County circuit court against the Board of Governors by University of Florida graduate student Anthony Rojas seeks only a refund of fees and diverges from the arguments in the other cases about reimbursing tuition. "Plaintiff's claims relate solely to fees paid by Florida residents for on-campus services and do not concern fees or costs for tuition and/or room and board because students were able to complete their courses and obtain their credits for the spring semester and because the universities have offered appropriate refunds relating to room and board, but not as to fees," the Rojas lawsuit said. All three lawsuits make allegations such as breach of contract and "unjust enrichment." The Fagundez and Rojas suits seek to be class actions on behalf of students throughout the university system, while the Egleston case focuses on the University of Florida. Judges will ultimately decide whether to allow them to proceed as class actions. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: Regents Face Vijay Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma. The case is styled as Vivek Vijay, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated v. Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma; State of Oklahoma ex rel. and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 5:20-cv-00499-G (W.D. Okla., May 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. The Board of Regents is the official governing body of The University of Oklahoma, Cameron University, and Rogers State University, composed of seven citizens appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Brooks, Esq. BROOKS LAW FIRM LLC 7100 M. Classen Blvd., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Phone: (405) 840-1066 Fax: (405) 843-8446 Email: michael.brooks@brookslawok.com VAIL CORPORATION: Refuses Ski Passes Cost Refund, Gasman Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN B. GASMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01475 (D. Colo., May 22, 2020), arises out of the sale of and refusal to refund costs for ski passes despite the Defendant's closure of its properties. On or about March 25, 2020, Vail Resorts notified its passholders that it closed all 34 of its North American resorts. Vail has allegedly not refunded any portion of Mr. Gasman's Adult Epic Local Pass or the Child Epic Local Pass that he purchased for his son. Mr. Gasman was only able to use his Epic Local Pass on 17 days before Vail closed its resorts. His son only used his Epic Local Pass on 2 days before Vail closed its resorts. The Plaintiff continues to face imminent harm as the Defendant retains his Epic Pass fees while all of its mountain resorts remain closed nationwide, says the complaint. Mr. Gasman is an annual passholder for Vail Resorts. In 2019, Mr. Gasman purchased an Adult Epic Local Pass for himself, costing $699.00. He also purchased a Child Epic Local Pass for his seven-year-old son, costing $369.00. The Epic Passes promised unlimited and unrestricted skiing or snowboarding at various resorts, plus a combined total of ten days at Vail Resort or Colorado Beaver Creek. Vail Corporation is the operator of 34 ski resorts in North America, and holds itself out as a "the premiere mountain resort company in the world."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick D. Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICK D. BAILEY, ESQ. 1085 Lafayette St., No. 702 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: 720-676-6023 E-mail: rick@rickbaileylaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. David Lietz, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: 202 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@mason.llp.com dlietz@masonllp.com gklinger@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com VAIL RESORTS: Refuses Refund After COVID-19 Closure, Dipirro Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY DIPIRRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VAIL RESORTS, INC. and THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01468 (D. Colo., May 22, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' refusal to refund fees after it closed all of its North American ski resorts, well short of the promised duration of the ski season. Vail Resorts announced in mid-March that due to the spread of COVID-19 it had closed all of its North American ski resorts for the remainder of the 2019-20 ski season. Vail Resorts told its customers that "all season pass and Epic Day Pass products are non-refundable and non-transferable to another season." According to the complaint, Vail Resorts collected fees from skiers, snowboarders, and others, but then deprived them of the promised "unlimited skiing and snowboarding" from October 2019 to June 2020. Vail Resorts touts itself as "the premier mountain resort company in the world" and to ski Vail, its premier resort, is "like nothing on earth (TM)." Vail Resorts sold a variety of daily and season passes for the 2019-20 season, including the Epic Pass, which it marketed as "the best value and variety for unlimited skiing and riding."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Mickey L. Stevens, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com mstevens@gustafsongluek.com VALLO TRANSPORTATION: Chen Sues Over Failure to Refund Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Chen, Peter Kwong, Jamie Lam, Jason Philips, EJ Zgodny, on their own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. VALLO TRANSPORTATION LTD., Case No. 705994/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., May 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant, who despite not providing any transportation services from March 13, 2020, and continuing through the remainder of the school year, has not refunded any monies, pro rata, to the Plaintiffs. The putative class consists of individuals, who have contracted with the Defendant to provide private bus transportation to transport their children to and from their specialized public school of Bronx High School of Science ("BHSS") and/or the High School of American Studies at Lehman ("HSAS"). The Defendant, and its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, contracted with the putative class to provide private yellow bus transportation for their children to and from their specialized school for the entire 2019-2020 school year, commencing on September 5, 2019, and concluding on June 26, 2020. The putative class paid approximately $3,088 to $4,500 per student for VALLO's transportation services. The contract specifically provides that should the contract be terminated, the Defendant will refund the monies paid by the putative class pro rata. VALLO failed to provide all of the transportation services contracted, according to the complaint. Instead, the Defendant only provided transportation services through March 13, 2020, approximately 40% less than what was contracted and paid for. On May 8, 2020, VALLO sent an email to the putative class that they intend to refund the putative class only a nominal sum--$124.24 per student--regardless of how much was paid. The Plaintiffs are parents of students, who attend the specialized high schools of Bronx High School of Science and/or the High School of American Studies at Lehman. VALLO provides Transportation Services to thousands of students in Queens and Manhattan, New York, to and from BHSS and HSAS.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip M. Hines, Esq. HELD & HINES, L.L.P. 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (718) 531-9700 Email: phines@heldhines.com VASILE PROPERTIES: Faces Castle Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAUNA CASTLE v. VASILE PROPERTIES AIRPORT PLAZA, LLC; CHARLES W. VASILE; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18984 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the California Labor Code on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated for violations of wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff contends that during her employment tenure with VASILE, she was supposed to be considered an hourly, non-exempt employee, however, she was misclassified as an independent contractor and received checks without any deductions. She adds that the Defendants failed also to pay overtime wages even when she worked more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout her employment. The Plaintiff started working for VASILE as an Assistant/Property Manager on May 5, 2019, with her employment ending on May 19, 2019. Vasile is in the nonresidential building operators business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Tynisha Jackson, David Creveling, Mary Hans, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 2011972, was removed from Berks County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02524 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Velocity Investments, LLC, is a comprehensive accounts receivables management (ARM) company focused on working with consumers to find satisfactory resolutions to outstanding debts. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Craig J. Renitsky, Esq. MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY PC 1617 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1010 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-6688 Email: crenitsky@moodklaw.com WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Krauss Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HOPE KRAUSS, aka DEONTE KRAUSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00838-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failing to cure its prior deficiencies. Plaintiff Krauss filed the putative class action against her former employer, Defendants Walmart and Wal-Mart Associate, for violating California's labor laws. The Plaintiff alleges Walmart: (1) required her to work off the clock, and during meal and rest breaks without compensation; (2) inaccurately recorded the amount of time she worked; (3) refused to compensate her for overtime hours; (4) failed to reimburse her for necessary business-related expenses; (5) and generally withheld funds she was entitled to upon her termination. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), alleging the Plaintiff failed to properly state her claims. The Court granted the motion without prejudice and granted the Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. The Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. Currently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for failing to cure its prior deficiencies. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's meal period and rest claims because they fell short of plausibility. In its Order, the Court stated that "at a minimum", the Plaintiff needed to demonstrate she was entitled to the required meal periods or rest breaks. The Plaintiff followed the Court's instructions in her SAC and alleged she worked hours long enough to trigger the required meal or rest periods. As to the meal periods claim, Plaintiff alleged that despite working shifts of more than five hours, the Plaintiff was unable to take timely duty-free, and uninterrupted meal breaks. Likewise, in her rest breaks claim, Plaintiff added on more than one occasion, the Plaintiff worked a shift of at least three and one-half hours without being able to take a timely, duty-free, and uninterrupted rest break. Judge Mendez finds that the Plaintiff's amended claims, however, stop there and are still insufficient because she fails to describe what Walmart actually told her to deter her meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff has failed to identify any similar "pressure tactics" engaged in by Walmart. The Judge therefore dismissed the Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims with prejudice. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's minimum wage and overtime claims because her First Amended Complaint (FAC) only included generalized allegations" in support of these claims. Specifically, it found that the Plaintiff had not met the minimum requirement of alleging "she had worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek without overtime and minimum wage compensation." Because the claims failed for that reason alone, the Court did not address the Defendants' other arguments. The Defendants now seek dismissal of these two claims on the grounds not previously addressed by the Court. Judge Mendez declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' minimum wage and overtime claims because that additional allegation made it "plausible" her employer prevented her from taking breaks and undermined a formal policy of providing meal and rest periods. In the instant case, unlike the Plaintiff's allegations found sufficient in Varsam, the Plaintiff does not allege Walmart was short staffed. The Plaintiff has once again failed to plead enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim with prejudice. The Plaintiff amended her claim in an attempt to meet the bare minimum pleading requirements. She now alleges working at least on more than one occasion more than eight hours in a given workday and more than 40 hours in a given workweek without being paid overtime compensation. But the Plaintiff's amendments stop there. There is no allegation that "ties" the alleged overtime violation together with the statute to make her claim plausible. The Plaintiff's amended overtime claim still lacks key facts and specific detail necessary to support the claim. The Judge therefore dismissed the Plaintiff's overtime claim with prejudice. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's wage statement claim in part because it was a generic allegation that merely restated the requirements of Labor Code Section 226(a). The Defendants argue the Plaintiff once again merely restates the statute requirements, without explaining how her wage statement supposedly violates the code. The Plaintiff contends her claim is properly pled. Judge Mendez finds that the Plaintiff has properly alleged a wage statement violation under Labor Code Sections 226(a)(6) and (9), but not under Section 226(a)(8). The Judge therefore denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Wage Statement claim as it pertains to those two Sections. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for two incurred expenses: (1) a cell-phone app utilized for work communication, and (2) work boots for working in walk-in freezers. The Court previously dismissed the claim because the Plaintiff had failed to explain whether the cell-phone app required a fee to download, let alone whether Walmart even knew that she downloaded the app or purchased the boots. The Defendants argue the Plaintiff's claim fails for the same reasons. The Court agrees as to the work boot allegation but finds the Plaintiff has properly pled the claim as to her phone app allegation. Judge Mendez denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's unreimbursed business expenses claim only to the extent it is predicated on her cellphone app allegation. The Judge no longer finds the Plaintiff needs to allege such an instance. The Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under Labor Code Section 203, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's Section 203 claim fails because her underlying claims fail. While the Plaintiff does not specify, it is presumed the cause of action is predicated on her overtime and minimum wage claims. Because those claims fail, the cause of action fails as well. Judge Mendez dismissed the fifth cause of action with prejudice. The Defendants argue the Plaintiff's UCL claim fails because all the underlying claims must be dismissed. As the Court explained, some of the claims upon which the UCL claim is predicated are adequately pled. Specifically, the Judge finds that in the SAC Plaintiff has properly pled the underlying claims alleging the Defendants failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements and indemnify the Plaintiff for necessary expenditures. Accordingly, Judge Mendez denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL claim to the extent it is predicated on wage statement and indemnification violations. The Plaintiff has properly pled two of the underlying claims upon which her PAGA claim is based on: wage statement and indemnification claims. The Judge therefore turns to the Defendants' argument that the PAGA claim should be dismissed under PAGA's exhaustion requirement. Without including the facts and theories the Plaintiff provided to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) in her complaint, the Judge cannot independently conclude that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of the statute as a matter of law. The Judge therefore dismisses the Plaintiff's PAGA claims with prejudice. The Plaintiff contends she is entitled to leave to amend unless it is clear the pleading cannot be cured by the allegation of additional facts. As the Defendants point out, the Plaintiff has had three chances to amend her complaint and has failed to rectify most of the deficiencies the Court pointed out in its November 2019 Order. Specifically, the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to cure her First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action. The Court finds that further amendment of these claims would be futile and unduly prejudicial to the Defendants since Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to properly state her claims. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is therefore denied. For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Judge specifically (i) granted the Motion as to the Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Causes of Action, which are dismissed with prejudice; and (ii) denied as to the Plaintiff's Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Causes of Action. The Defendants is directed to file their Answer to the remaining claims in the SAC without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/t0zV71 from Leagle.com. WARNER MUSIC: Court Issues Protective Order in Williams Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court for the Central District of California issued a Protective Order in the case captioned LEONARD WILLIAMS, an individual, and THE LENNY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW, (C.D. Cal.). Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sfcxckn Leagle.com Leonard Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arun Dayalan - adayalan@jjllplaw.com - Johnson and Johnson LLP, Bobby Pouya - bpouya@pswlaw.com - Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP, 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 91403-3373, Daniel L. Warshaw , Pearson Simon and Warshaw LLP, Douglas L. Johnson , Johnson and Johnson LLP, Jeffrey A. Koncius , Kiesel Law LLP, Neville Lawrence Johnson , Johnson and Johnson LLP, Nicole Ramirez , Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R. Kiesel , Kiesel Law LLP & Ashley M. Conlogue , Kiesel Law LLP. The Lenny Williams Production Company, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley M. Conlogue , Kiesel Law LLP & Jeffrey A. Koncius , Kiesel Law LLP. Warner Music Group Corp., a Delaware Corporation & Warner Bros Records Inc, Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by Sean A. Commons , Sidley Austin LLP, Sheri Porath Rockwell , Sidley Austin LLP & Rollin A. Ransom , Sidley Austin LLP. WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks to Certify Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANTHONY WRIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-62051-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying collective action of and facilitating notice to: "current and former Waste Disposal Drivers, who were/are employed by Defendants, Waste Pro USA, Inc. and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., in Florida, and who were/are paid on a job/day rate basis, within the last three years prior to the filing of this Motion." According to the Plaintiff's complaint, Waste Pro requires its Drivers to work over forty hours per work week. This was/is partially due to the fact that once a Driver is finished with his/her route for the day, the Defendants require the Driver to assist other drivers on their routes. However, Defendants did not properly compensate their Drivers at a rate that is one and one-half times the Drivers' regular rate of pay for their overtime hours worked each week. Waste Pro is "one of the largest, full-service, vertically integrated waste management companies." [CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com pbotros@forthepeople.com WE COMPANY: Vernet Sues Over Misleading Statements to Investors` ---------------------------------------------------------------- MALAKYAR VERNET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE WE COMPANY, ADAM NEUMANN, ARTHUR MINSON, MICHAEL GROSS, LEWIS FRANKFORT, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, M. STEVEN LANGMAN, JOHN ZHAO, MARK SCHWARTZ, RONALD D. FISHER, and SOFTBANK GROUP CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03686 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Corporations Code. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated purchasers of WeWork securities between May 15, 2017 and September 30, 2019, alleges that the Defendants released false and misleading statements about We Company's business growth and financial performance in order to sell WeWork securities at inflated prices. In the Defendants' statements to investors, they highlighted WeWork's rapid revenue growth, healthy profit margins and a sustained path to profitability. The company's true financial condition started to surface in 2019 when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rejected the company's use of fanciful accounting metrics such as community-adjusted EBITDA to cover its financial performance. Additional disclosures required by SEC further exposed the company's precarious finances and rampant insider dealing. By November 2019, WeWork was valued at less than $5 billion, a stunning 90% decline in less than a year. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses as a result of Defendants' unlawful practices. As widely reported, SoftBank Group agreed to spend more than $10 billion to take over WeWork in October last year. Reuters' Anirban Sen, Jessica DiNapoli and Jane Lanhee Lee noted that following the deal, SoftBank, WeWork's largest shareholder, had committed more than $13 billion in equity to a company that is now valued at just $8 billion. WeWork attained a $47 billion valuation in January 2019 and was preparing for an initial public offering around August, which was later scrapped. The We Company is a private commercial real estate company that specializes in the provision of shared workspace for technology startups and other enterprises. It maintained dual headquarters in San Francisco and New York. Softbank Group Corp. is a multinational conglomerate holding company that provides telecommunication services, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and – Travis E. Downs III, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com travisd@rgdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com WILLIS TOWERS: Tang Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Acquisition by Aon -------------------------------------------------------------- Minrui Tang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ANNA C. CATALANO, VICTOR F. GANZI, JOHN J. HALEY, WENDY E. LANE, BRENDAN R. O'NEILL, JAYMIN B. PATEL, LINDA D. RABBITT, PAUL D. THOMAS, and WILHELM ZELLER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00986-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2020), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction pursuant to which WTW will be acquired by Aon plc. The lawsuit is brought against Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company and the members of WTW's Board of Directors for their false and misleading proxy statement in violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 9, 2020, WTW and Aon issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into a Business Combination Agreement dated March 9, 2020, to sell WTW to Aon. Under the terms of the Business Combination Agreement, each holder of WTW Class A ordinary shares will receive 1.08 Aon Class A ordinary shares for each WTW Class A ordinary share they own (the "Merger Consideration"). Upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Aon and WTW shareholders will own approximately 62.3% and 37.7% of the combined company, respectively. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $26.7 billion. On May 11, 2020, WTW filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that WTW stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Company and Aon management's financial projections for each of WTW, Aon and the combined pro forma company, as well as the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; and (ii) Goldman's potential conflicts of interest. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act. In short, the Plaintiff asserts, unless remedied, WTW's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of WTW. WTW is an Irish public limited company and is a leading global advisory, broking and solutions company that designs and delivers solutions that manage risk, optimize benefits, cultivate talent and expand the power of capital to protect and strengthen institutions and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310/208-2800 Facsimile: 310/209-2348 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 WORLD TRIATHLON: Refuses Refunds of Nixed Events, Ellenwood Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIKAELA ELLENWOOD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similar Situated v. WORLD TRIATHLON CORPORATION, COMPETITOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED and COMPETITOR GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01182-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act alleging refusal to refund registration fee for cancelled IRONMAN event or Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series event. Because of the Novel Coronavirus, which causes the disease COVID-19, the Defendants have attempted to reschedule or postpone many IRONMAN and Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series events scheduled to take place in 2020. However, the Defendants have refused to provide any refund for postponed or cancelled events, instead forcing the Plaintiff and members of the class to either participate in a re-scheduled event later in 2020 (if available), or if an event has been entirely cancelled, re-register for a race in a different city on a different weekend or defer their participation to 2021, says the complaint. The Plaintiff registered to participate in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series half-marathon race in San Francisco, which was scheduled to take place on April 5, 2020. The race was cancelled, but Plaintiff was not refunded her fees nor offered the opportunity to seek a refund of those fees and, instead, her registration has been deferred to the same race in San Francisco on April 4, 2021. WTC owns, operates, manages, and/or facilitates IRONMAN events including, IRONMAN triathlon, half-triathlon, and 5150 Triathlon Series events. CGI together own, operate, manage, and facilitate the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series, which hosts various running events across the country, including in the State of Florida. CGI are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of WTC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Michael R. Owens, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 Facsimile: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com mro@edgarlawfirm.com [*] Bricker & Eckler Attorney Discusses Tuition Refund Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Campbell, Esq. -- dcampbell@bricker.com -- of Bricker & Eckler LLP, in an article for JDSupra, relates that nowhere is the COVID-19 virus mutating more quickly than in the cozy confines of class action litigation. From business interruption, to gym memberships, to disappointed Airbnb hosts, more and more Americans are turning to Rule 23 to recover losses that are as unprecedented as they were unpredictable. The halls of higher education have not been spared. On March 27, 2020, the first college tuition refund class action lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Arizona. The second suit came 12 days later in a federal district court in South Carolina. Since then, at least 60 class actions have been filed in federal and state courts across the country, and more are coming.1 Yet, what distinguishes the tuition refund cases from other class litigation is that the plaintiffs didn't actually lose anything. Their main complaint is that the innovative transition from live to online learning that was necessitated by campus closures in response to nationwide civil shutdown orders deprived students of the benefit of their bargain: live interaction in a diverse campus community. While the merits of these claims are dubious, there is one thing that these class action lawsuits - like their class members - have in common: they could not be more different. Here is a brief overview of the key issues. The claims Most of the lawsuits allege three types of claims under three types of theories. The class plaintiffs seek refunds for the pro rata portion of (1) unused room and board fees; (2) various student activity fees; and (3) tuition. The lawsuits assert three common theories of recovery: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) conversion. The premise Each of these class actions is based on the same premise: Tuition for in-person instruction is higher than for online institutions, because it covers more than the academic instruction. Tuition also includes the costs of: -- face to face interaction with professors, mentors and peers -- extracurricular activities, social development and independence -- hands-on learning and experimentation -- networking opportunities The damages The intangible nature of the alleged drivers of the increased costs helps to explain the variation in damage models. -- One case seeks the pro rata difference between the cost of on-campus tuition and online degree offerings in the same major. See, e.g., Student A v. Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case No. 20-cv-03208 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2020). -- Another case seeks "return of the monies paid for the Spring 2020 semester" based on "the difference between one half of one semester of instruction on online distance platforms versus one half of one semester of live in-person instruction in brick and mortar class rooms." Church v. Purdue University, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00025 (N.D. IN. April 9, 2020), Compl. 80. -- Still others, perhaps wisely, do not articulate any damage theory at all. These cases simply ask for damages "in an amount to be ascertained by the jury at the trial of this action . . ." See, e.g., Rickenbaker v. Drexel University, Case No. 2:20-cv-01358 (D.S.C. April 8, 2020). While some of these damage theories demonstrate their authors' gift for fiction, they are as uncertain as the virus that inspired them. Yet the uncertainty of damages may not be the greatest impediment to class certification. It is the difference in the injuries reflected by these theories that may ultimately doom these classes. Prepare/plan/be prudent As colleges and universities wait and wonder whether they will be next, there are several steps to take now that will help to defend your institution. -- Protect the privilege. Every phase of pre-litigation investigation should be coordinated through in-house and/or outside counsel. Exercise caution in deciding when—and if—to speak with other institutions. -- Prepare responses and talking points to address student, parent and media inquiries. This is a crisis. Engage in crisis management protocols. -- Identify any refunds/credits that would be appropriate in light of the closure, if you have not already done so. -- Survey course catalogues, student handbooks and social media posts to identify the types of statements that could be used to support the existence of a contractual promise. -- Identify published statements or writings expressing views regarding online distance teaching platforms (including any scholarship that may have come from your own faculty!). -- Engage accounting and operational personnel to evaluate exposure, as well as the basis for tuition, room and board, and student activity fees. The operational facts behind these costs may reveal defenses to class claims. -- Consult with counsel for coverage advice, and consider the consequences of coverage. Your carrier may have the right to select counsel for you, which may not be counsel of your choice. And remember, counsel selected by your carrier will not be able to represent you should there be a coverage dispute. -- Monitor social media. Some class action targets have shaped an emerging narrative because they were thoughtfully engaged in, and had a strategy for addressing concerns. The State University of New York (SUNY) posts daily updates on all case filings, many with a helpful summary of the allegations. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***