/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200710.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 138 Headlines 4C KINZIE: Court Narrows Claims in Luna Labor Class Suit ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: 10 Suits on Tetraphase Merger Underway ACER THERAPEUTICS: Gonzalez Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements ACG CAR CARE: Faces Bolivar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ALASKA AIRLINES: Parties in Shattenkirk Suit File Status Report ALEX AUTO: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Auto Cutters ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway ALTRIA GROUP: McGee Alleges Conspiracy in E-Cigarette Market AMAZON CORPORATE: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Kendall Claims AMERICAN SPECIALTY: Still Charges Fees Amid COVID-19, Hodges Says AMERICOLLECT INC: Chambliss Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Chambliss" AMERIFIELD INC: Casillas Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Truck Drivers AMNEAL PHARMA: Briefing on Special Master's Proposal Underway AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits over Prescription Opioid AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Opana Suit APPLE INC: Fails to Protect Consumer Privacy Rights, Ohanian Says ASIAN MOON: Faces Zhang Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ASTELLAS US: Miller et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses ATLAS FIELD: Daniel et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Foresters ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ATV INC: Faces Herndon Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. BISMILLAH BAWARCHI: Martinez Sues over Unpaid Minimum and OT Pay BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing BLACKBERRY LTD: Initial Settlement Approval Hearing on July 16 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Braverman Seek to Certify i3 Owners Class BROADWAY S/S INC: Lara Seeks Proper Wages for Mechanics BRUNSWICK CORP: Conditional Class Certification in Robles Denied BTI GROUP: A1 On Track Sues in California Alleging TCPA Violation BUILDING SERVICE: Lardo Sues Over Denial of Disability Pension BUMBLE HOLDING: King Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Heredia Seeks Final Settlement Approval CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz Sues in South Carolina Over TCPA Violation CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA: Underpays Butchers, Munoz Claims CEDAR SHAKE: Court Grants Letter Rogatory Request in Antitrust Suit CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. CELLULAR SALES: Granted Leave to Serve on Chapman CHARLES BAKER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification CHEETAH MOBILE: Azure Funds Sues over 17% Drop in Share CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid OT & Spread of Hours Pay COLLEGE VISTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to LVNs, Waters Claims CORVIAS: Three Fort Bragg Families File Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Arun Yang Removed as Lead Plaintiff CREST HOTEL: Underpays Housekeepers, Tello Claims CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway CUYAHOGA, OH: Papp Alleges Discrimination of Female Jail Guards DCH REGIONAL: Court Denies Dismissal of McAteer Class Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Proctor Suit Over Futures Prices Manipulation DEUTSCHE BANK: Robert Charles Alleges Spoofing of Treasury Futures DIMARE HOMESTEAD: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Vlasa Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid DOLLAR BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Walden Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation ENHANCED RECOVERY: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Faces Brown Suit Over Unpaid Overtime EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Mismanagement EYM PIZZA: Robertson et al. Seek Refund for Out-of-Pocket Expenses FINJAN HOLDINGS: Docs on Fortress Merger Lack Info, Post Alleges FINJAN HOLDINGS: Merger Docs Have Incomplete Info, Grier Says FIREBIRD FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mejia Claims FLOOR & DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Certify Collective Action FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit vs. Lee County Sheriff Dept. FPA MULTIFAMILY: Lawrence Seeks Refund for March & April Rent FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class GALLITOS MEXICAN: Nocelotl et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages GEO GROUP: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Novoa Suit GLENS FALLS: Improperly Charges Overdraft & NSF Fees, Richard Says GLOBAL CONCESSIONS: Flores Suit Seeks Payment Over Tip Skimming GLOBAL SPEC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vanaken Claims GRUBHUB INC: Eliades et al. Allege Price-Fixing GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Leal Insurance Suit in Connecticut HIGH RIVER LTD: Franchi Submitted Verification in Breach Lawsuit HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Discrimination Suit Moved to S.D. Texas HUGHES CITY, AR: Court Wants Narrower Class ICON PLC: Miller Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. IFFAH INVESTMENTS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages IGNITE INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Claims JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Unit Sues Over Delays in Generic Drug JEFFERSON, NY: Court Denies Nourse's Class Certification JOHN M. LEUTHARDT: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages For Flaggers JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moll Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Graziano Says KRAFT HEINZ: Falsely Labels Cheese Products as Natural, Koh Claims LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Suit Moved From C.D. California to D.N.J. LISA'S ULTIMATE: Bennett Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA M & L CLEANING: Jimenez FLSA Suit Granted Collective Status MANAGED LABOR: Underpays Transporters & Drivers, Poliner Alleges MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Lo Alleges Illegal Recruitment of Nurses MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss MATHERSON ORGANICS: Schnurer Sues Over Toothpowders' Side Effects MDL 1720: R&M Objectors' Request for Attorneys' Fees Denied MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 17 MI BARRIO MEAT: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Butchers MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Schnapf FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Indiana MIKE & CATHY'S: Merino et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages MONSANTO CO: Baltimore County, City Lead Class Action Settlement MONSANTO CO: Long Beach, et al. Seek Approval of $550-Mil. Accord MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Causes Cancer, Diaz et al. Claim MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Roden Claims MOOREGROUP CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Porter Class Suit MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Noble Claims NASH EXPRESS: Rodriguez Sues Over Bounced Check & Unpaid Wages NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 22 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 3 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. NEW YORK: Farmingdale Gym Owner Plans to File Class Action NY EDUC DEPT: Court Certifies Class in J.S.M. "Due Process" Suit OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Stayed PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification PARAGON COIN: Court Certifies Federal Claims Class PAUL F. VANEK: Polch Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Paugstat Suit Over Unpaid Overtime PFIZER INC: Faces Hays Suit in Colorado Alleging Personal Injury PHH MORTGAGE: Torres Balks at Bankruptcy Plan Objections, Fees PLAYAGS INC: Chowdhury Sues over 17% Drop in Share PNC BANK: Class Limited to Loan Officers Employed Thru June 2019 PRO ACTIVE SAFETY: Misclassifies HSE Specialists, Clayton Claims PROGRESSIVE SELECT: South Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class PROPER & WILD: Preston et al. Sue Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid OT PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Alleges Insurance Policy Breach QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action QUEST NUTRITION: Jolly Sues in S.D. New York Over Fraud Claims QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrett Claims READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing RESTORBIO INC: Adicet Merger Deal Lacks Info, Plumley Claims RITE AID: Infant Meds Has Active Compound, Ostermeier-McLucas Says SALLY WOLF GRINNELL: Toro Buying Cashiers Property for $525K SAN DIEGO: Guardian Ad Litem Petition Denied in J.F. Lawsuit SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Alleges Illegal Repossession of Vehicle SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Saidman Sues Over Work Harassment, Bias SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Court Rules on Class Certification in Marti SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Suit Seeks to Certify Florida Classes SK ENERGY: Carpe Carma Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California STATE COLLECTION: Gordon Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid STATE FARM: Clippinger Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee STEAM GENERATING: Miller Seeks to Certify Workers Class STERLING HOME: Class Settlement in Darby Suit Gets Final Approval STOP N GO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Castillo Claims TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery Underway in Speakes Suit TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action TEVA CORP: Ontario Teachers & Anchorage Police Seek Class Status TEXAS HEALTH: Faces Strong Class Suit in Texas District Court TIKTOK INC: Parents Sue Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Data TOYOTA MOTOR: Gendron Suit Moved From California to E.D. New York TRANS WORLD: Spack et al. Seek Approval of Settlement TWIN STONE: Serrano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Jackson et al. Claim U.S. BANK: Fails to Timely Release Mortgage Liens, Ballard Alleges UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Stayed UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Suit Stayed UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Cockerell Suit Stayed UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. URBAN COMMONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Kandil Says VICTOR HILL: Fails to Take COVID-19 Measures in Jail, Jones Says VITOL INC: Long et al. Allege Gasoline Price-Fixing WALDORF ASTORIA: Lopez Seeks Payment for Off-the-Clock Hours WALGREENS BOOTS: North Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Dust Removal Spray WELLS FARGO: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Unpaid Off-The-Clock Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31 ********* 4C KINZIE: Court Narrows Claims in Luna Labor Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ERIK LUNA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4C KINZIE INVESTOR, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 5165, (N.D. Ill.). The case is a collective and class action against 15 bars and restaurants located in Chicago, brought by a server at one of the establishments. The initial Complaint consisted of ten counts: Count I-violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Count II-violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law; Count III-violation of the Chicago Minimum Wage Law; Count IV-violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA); Count V-conversion; Count VI-violation of Section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code; Count VII-RICO; Count VIII-civil conspiracy; Count IX common law fraud; and Count X-negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint that includes as Counts I though IV the wage counts which were not dismissed and has repleaded Count VI, the Internal Revenue Code claim as Count V, the RICO count as Count VI, and the fraud count as Count VII. Defendants have again moved to dismiss the three repleaded counts. Fraud Counts The fraud counts rely on the W-2s as deliberately overstating the servers' income to shift the tax burden from Defendants to the servers. The Amended Complaint states that the Plaintiff servers receive and report, on average, 12% of Defendants' sales in take home cash. Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants, in preparing and filing the W-2s, assume that servers receive tip income equal to 16-20% of total sales. Thus, the servers are saddled with higher income and accordingly are required to pay more tax. Somewhat offsetting this theory is the fact that if an employer over-reports an employee's income, the employer is liable for an increased amount due to the federal government for Social Security and FICA payments. Regardless, the discrepancy between what Defendants report to the IRS and what the servers report as receiving from customers should be easily determined through discovery. Thus, at this stage of the case, the Court will let the fraud counts stand and await future determination based on a more complete record, perhaps at the summary judgment stage. The Motion to Dismiss Count V, violation of Section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code, and Count VII, common law fraud, is denied. RICO Count Plaintiffs allege in Count VI that Defendants violated the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). To state such a cause of action, a plaintiff must show (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. Defendants take aim at each of the respective elements of a Sec. 1962(c) claim. However, the Court notes it need only consider the conduct and enterprise elements. The Amended Complaint describes the 15 Defendant bar and restaurant entities as "part of a collection of bars and restaurants located in Chicago, Illinois operating under the common 'Four Corners' enterprise." "Four Corners" is described as "a voluntary unincorporated association of entities operating the foregoing bars and restaurants located in Chicago, Illinois." Additionally, the Amended Complaint alleges that other entities, including the Four Corners Tavern Fund LLC; Four Corners Tavern Group Investors, LLC; Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC; Four Corners Tavern Group Inc.; Four Corners Holding LLC; Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC; Four Corners Shuttle LLC; 4C Cheval LLC; and 1001 W. Lake LLC, all operating out of the same business address of 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, "all control[] the payment of wages to, servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants with the Four Corners enterprise." The Amended Complaint then alleges that Defendants Matthew Menna and Andrew Gloor are "real person[s] and [] manager[s] of the previously described entities, who exercise significant control, oversight, and authority relative to the entities within the Four Corners enterprise." The Court opines that "[w]hile the Amended Complaint's description of the legal set up of the Four Corners enterprise is confusing to say the least, the bottom line is that Menna and Gloor appear to own and control Four Corners, and through that enterprise they conduct the business of operating certain bars and restaurants for their own enrichment. Consequently, Menna and Gloor constitute both the person and the enterprise, which is not a violation of Section 1962(c) when the two are combined." The Court therefore dismisses Count VI, this time with prejudice. IWPCA Count The Court denied Defendants' first motion to dismiss the IWPCA claim without comment. The Court overlooked the position of the Defendants that sought dismissal of this claim. The Court has now been asked once again to consider dismissal of this count. Defendants contend that the IWPCA cannot be used to recover where the claim is based on minimum wage claims. Plaintiffs contend, however, that their claim presented in Count IV is not based solely on the minimum wage laws but instead on an agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants that they receive all of their tip income, which in Count IV they deny that they received. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and denies the Motion to Dismiss Count IV. In sum, the Court ruled that the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses Count VI of the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The remaining Counts - I, II, III, IV, V, and VII - shall stand. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r2yf6ha from Leagle.com. Erik Luna, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. - tom@attorneyzim.com ; Matthew C. De Re - matt@attorneyzim.com ; Nickolas J. Hagman - nick@attorneyzim.com ; and Sharon Harris of Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. 4C Kinzie Investor, LLC, doing business as Highline Bar & Lounge, 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, doing business as Federales, 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC, doing business as Fremont Bar, Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC, 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC, doing business as SteakBar, 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC, Talbott Associates, LP, doing business as 20 East, 4C Wrigley, LLC, doing business as Brickhouse Tavern, Keystone Holdings Corp., 4C Riverside, LLC, doing business as Porter Kitchen & Deck, Cheval Porter Manager, LLC, Wells Holdings Manager, LLC, West Loop Tap, LLC, doing business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Madison and Ada), Shef at Oak, Inc., doing business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Madison and Ada), River North Tap, Inc., doing business as Sidebar Grille, Rocco's, LLC, doing business as Ranalli's, Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC, doing business as Gaslight, Asclose, Inc., doing business as Schoolyard Tavern & Grill, The Chase Tavern, Inc., doing business as Trellis Wine Bar, Saloon Holdings, LLC., doing business as The Crossing Tavern, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC, Hardtales, Inc., doing business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park), Four Corners, a voluntary unincorporated association, Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc., Four Corners Holdings, LLC, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC, Four Corners Shuttle, LLC, 4C Cheval LLC, 1001 W. Lake, LLC, Matthew Menna & Andrew Gloor, Defendants, represented by Daniel W. Tarpey , Tarpey Wix LLC; Noah A. Finkel - nfinkel@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Cheryl A. Luce -cluce@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP; David G. Wix, Tarpey Wix LLC & Matthew Showel , Tarpey Wix LLC. Wells Holdings, LLC, doing business as Benchmark Bar and Grill, Defendant, represented by Daniel W. Tarpey, Tarpey Wix LLC, Noah A. Finkel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Cheryl A. Luce, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Matthew Showel, Tarpey Wix LLC. Wells Holdings, LLC, doing business as Bar and Grill, Defendant, represented by David G. Wix, Tarpey Wix LLC. ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc. On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. ("Marriott") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges negligence by the company, and seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc. ("Starwood"), which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016. Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure outsourcing services to Starwood. Accenture said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we will vigorously defend it. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: 10 Suits on Tetraphase Merger Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that 10 lawsuits, including three putative class actions, are ongoing related to its merger agreement with Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On March 15, 2020, the Company entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or merger agreement, with Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Tetraphase, and Consolidation Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, or Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Company will acquire Tetraphase. As of May 8, 2020, ten lawsuits have been filed by alleged Tetraphase stockholders challenging the merger. * The first lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is captioned Plumley v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00496, and was filed by Patrick Plumley in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Plumley complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board, as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub. * The second lawsuit is captioned Sahan v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03069, and was filed by Herman Sahan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Sahan complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board. * The third lawsuit is captioned Giacobbe v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10762, and was filed by Charles Giacobbe in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Giacobbe complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board. * The fourth lawsuit is captioned Ravi v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03142, and was filed by Surya Ravi in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ravi complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board. * The fifth lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is captioned Garity v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00542, and was filed by Edward Garity in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Garity complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board, as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub. * The sixth lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is captioned Kashavena v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2081-cv-01005, and was filed by Vanamala Kashavena in the Middlesex County Superior Court. The Kashavena complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board, as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub. * The seventh lawsuit is captioned Waters v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01896, and was filed by Joshua Waters in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Waters complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board. * The eighth lawsuit is captioned Gardner v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03352, and was filed by James Gardner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Gardner complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board. * The ninth lawsuit is captioned Kopczynski v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03426, and was filed by Christopher Kopczynski in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Kopczynski complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board. * The tenth lawsuit is captioned Lapi v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03452, and was filed by Nisjet Lapi in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Lapi complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board. The Plumley, Sahan, Giacobbe, Ravi, Garity, Waters, Gardner, Kopczynski and Lapi complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that the registration statement on Form S-4 omits material information with respect to the proposed transaction, which renders such registration statement false and misleading. The Sahan complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of candor/disclosure, by allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement in connection with the merger. The Kashavena complaint alleges that the members of the Tetraphase Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty/good faith and candor/disclosure by allegedly entering into the merger through a flawed and unfair process and disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement in connection with the merger. The Kashavena complaint alleges that Tetraphase, AcelRx and Merger Sub aided and abetted in the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunction of the proposed transaction and, if the merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages. The complaints also seek the dissemination of a registration statement that discloses certain information requested by the plaintiffs. In addition, the complaints seek attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendants believe that the Plumley, Sahan, Giacobbe, Ravi, Garity, Kashavena, Waters, Gardner, Kopczynski and Lapi complaints are without merit. AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of acute pain. The company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30 mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain. It also develops ZALVISO, a pre-programmed and patient-controlled analgesia system that allows hospital patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain to self-dose with sufentanil sublingual tablets to manage their pain. The company was formerly known as SuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in August 2006. AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. ACER THERAPEUTICS: Gonzalez Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JASON AMELLO, STEVE ASELAGE, HUBERT BIRNER, JOHN M. DUNN, MICHELLE GRIFFIN, LUC MARENGERE, HARRY PALMIN, and CHRIS SCHELLING, Defendants, and ACER THERAPEUTICS INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00909-UNA (D. Del., July 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants made false and misleading Proxy Statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for 2018 and 2019 by failing to disclose these material facts: (a) the Ong Trial, a French clinical trial published in October 2010 involving the use of celiprolol, was substantially biased and underpowered, and would be inadequate to support the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of EDSIVO, Acer's new drug for the treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome; (b) the FDA had not agreed that further clinical trials for EDSIVO were not needed for the approval of EDSIVO's new drug application (NDA); (c) due to the foregoing, it was highly unlikely that EDSIVO's NDA would ultimately be approved; and (d) Acer Therapeutics failed to maintain internal controls. The misrepresentations and omissions were material to the Plaintiff in voting on the matters set forth for shareholder determination in the Proxy Statements, including, but not limited to: (a) with respect to the 2018 Proxy Statement, approval of the reincorporation of the Company as a Delaware corporation, approval of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and approval of amendments to the Company's Certificate of Incorporation pertaining to stockholder action at certain meetings, future amendments to the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, and the implementation of a forum selection clause, among other things; (b) with respect to the 2019 Proxy Statement, advisory approval of executive compensation and advisory approval of the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation; and (c) with respect to both Proxy Statements, election of directors and ratification of an independent auditor. The false and misleading elements of the Proxy Statements led to the approval of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and to the re-election of Defendants Schelling, Amello, Aselage, Birner, Dunn, Griffin, and Marengere to the Board, which allowed them to continue breaching their fiduciary duties to Acer. Acer Therapeutics Inc. is a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with critical unmet medical need. The company's principal executive offices are located at One Gateway Center, Suite 351, 300 Washington Street, Newton, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 - and – Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Daryoush Behbood, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and – Brett D. Stecker, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 326 W. Lancaster Avenue Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 - and – Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 ACG CAR CARE: Faces Bolivar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL BOLIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACG CAR CARE, LLC; and THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03741 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 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 Plaintiff Bolivar was employed by the Defendants as service technician. ACG Car Care, LLC operates an auto repair facility. The Company provides insurance, travel, maintenance and repair, auto loan, and related services for its members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Parties in Shattenkirk Suit File Status Report --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, MADELEINE F. SHATTENKIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. C19-01656 RSL (W.D. Wash), have filed a joint status report as directed by the Court in its March 20, 2020 order staying the action. In March 2020, the Parties jointly moved to stay the action pending ongoing negotiations of a global settlement of this and nine other similar actions involving airline and rail carriers. Judge Robert S. Lasnik approved the request to stay the action on March 20, 2020, a full-text copy of which order is available at https://is.gd/MpzsUd from Leagle.com. The negotiating parties contemplate submission of the global settlement for approval under Rule 23(e) in Dolan v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 0:18-cv-62193-RS (S.D. Fla.). Final approval of the class settlement in Dolan would result in the dismissal of this action. The Parties relate that despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have made substantial progress toward global settlement. Drafts of a proposed stipulation of class action settlement have been prepared and reviewed. They expect a Joint Notice of Pending Settlement to be filed in the Dolan case. Thus, the Parties propose to file a further status report to appraise the Court of any development. A full-text copy of the Joint Status Report is available at PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/3YoAN9 Madeleine F Shattenkirk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Marc Lawrence Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Emert -- memert@ssbny.com -- STULL STULL & EMERT, pro hac vice, Rebecca Luise Solomon -- rsolomon@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, pro hac vice. Alaska Airlines Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Gayle I. Jenkins -- gjenkins@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN, pro hac vice, Lazaro Fernandez -- lfernandez@stackfernandez -- STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS PA, pro hac vice & Rebecca J. Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. ALEX AUTO: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Auto Cutters -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEX AUTO PARTS, INC.; ALEXANDER MEZO; JUAN CARLOS CALDERON; and EDWIN FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05079 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay them overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and failure to keep payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto cutter in Bronx, New York in or around 1994 until in or around November 2018. Alex Auto Parts, Inc. is an automobile parts company with principal place of business located at 327 Bryant Avenue Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway --------------------------------------------------- Allakos Inc. continues to defend itself against a putative securities class action complaint captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo Redmond. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical trials of antolimab (AK002). The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive. The Company said that given the early stage of this litigation matter, it cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a range of potential future losses and has not recorded a contingent liability accrual as of March 31, 2020. ALTRIA GROUP: McGee Alleges Conspiracy in E-Cigarette Market ------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA McGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04413 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and engaged in continuing combination, conspiracy or agreement to unreasonably restrain trade or commerce by artificially reducing or eliminating competition with respect to the sale, marketing and distribution of closed system e-cigarettes sold to purchasers in the United States and its territories. Altria and JUUL entered into relationship agreement on December 20, 2018 by which Altria agreed to exit the e-cigarette market in exchange for a 35% stake in JUUL. As a result of this unlawful agreement, JUUL was able to raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of closed system e-cigarettes sold to purchasers in the country. The Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct has proximately caused injury to the Plaintiff and members of the Class by eliminating independent competition by Altria on price, promotional activity, and innovation; reducing consumer choice; and allowing JUUL to monopolize the market for closed system e-cigarettes. JUUL Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed system e-cigarettes with principal place of business located at 560 20th Street, San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a tobacco company headquartered at 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of tobacco manufacturer Altria Group and is located at 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com - and – Scott A. Martin, Esq. Irving Scher, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com ischer@hausfeld.com - and – William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffery L. Spector, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com Jspector@srkattorneys.com IEtheridge@srkattorneys.com - and – David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 940-4000 E-mail: DMclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com - and – Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com - and – Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 101689 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com AMAZON CORPORATE: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Kendall Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- RHIANNON KENDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON CORPORATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02493-JFA (D.S.C., June 30, 2020) alleges that Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative class with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. According to the complaint, despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, Amazon chose not to use the model form -- presumably to save Amazon money because COBRA coverage is inherently expensive for employers. The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. The Defendant's COBRA notice violates the law as it is not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant because it attempts to scare individuals away from electing COBRA by including an ominous warning suggesting that the submission of even "incomplete" information when electing COBRA may result in civil, or even criminal, penalties. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and provided by law. Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan prior to her termination, a qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1163(2). Amazon Corporate, LLC is the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Amazon Health & Welfare Benefits Plan with principal place of business in Seattle, Washington, but is registered to do business in the State of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 217 Lucas Street, Suite G Mount Pleasant, SC Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMERICAN SPECIALTY: Still Charges Fees Amid COVID-19, Hodges Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INCORPORATED; and AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH FITNESS, INC., Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-01158-LAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2020) alleges that the Defendants charges their customers monthly membership fees when fitness centers were closed during the COVID-19 Pandemic. To sign up for Defendants' program, customers provide the Defendants with their credit card or debit card information. The Defendants then automatically charge their customers as payments are due on a monthly basis. Beginning in March 2020, gyms across the country closed down indefinitely as "stay at home" and "shelter in place" orders were issued. However, the Defendants continued charging their customers including the Plaintiff, the full monthly membership fees. In doing so, the Defendants made the deliberate decision to take millions of dollars from their customers who did not have access to the service the Defendants promised, agreed, and warranted to them. During the pandemic, millions of Americans lost their jobs and the ability to earn a living. Millions of people are struggling to survive. Rather than stop charging their customers during the pandemic, like other business have done, the Defendants have continued taking money from their customers. The Plaintiff and Class Members need the money that the Defendants have unlawfully taken from them. The Defendants have taken this decision to profit from the COVID-19 Pandemic to the detriment of millions of Americans. American Specialty Health, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company offers health plans, employer groups, insurance carriers, trust funds, health services, fitness and exercise, and population health management programs. American Specialty Health operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tej P. Singh, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 1055 West 7th Street, 33rd Floor - 165 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (877) 342-2020 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: tsingh@hftrialfirm.com - and - Don Foty, Esq. David W. Hodges, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com dhodges@hftrialfirm.com AMERICOLLECT INC: Chambliss Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES E. CHAMBLISS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00922-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff 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 plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint him as the class representative, and appoint his 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 Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Chambliss" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES E. CHAMBLISS v. AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00922-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On June 18, 2020, 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. United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors.[CC] AMERIFIELD INC: Casillas Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Truck Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAMIRO CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIFIELD, INC., Defendant, Case 5:20-cv-00741 (W.D. Tex., June 23, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Casillas was employed by the Defendants as truck driver. Amerifield, Inc. is a trucking company that provides transportation and logistics services to customers in the Southwestern United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net AMNEAL PHARMA: Briefing on Special Master's Proposal Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in the consolidated suit styled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, the briefing in support of and in opposition to the Special Master's proposal is underway. Specifically, on February 20, 2020, the Special Master issued a Report & Recommendation and Proposed Order providing for the establishment of two bellwether trial tracks; Track One would involve a jury trial of the overarching conspiracy claims presented in the States Attorneys General's May 10, 2019 complaint (in which the Company and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Amneal") are defendants), and Track Two would consist of a second round of trials on one of three different individual drug conspiracy complaints (none of which involve the Company or any Amneal entities). Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax. The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; Cesar Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("E.D. Pa."), as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs' glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products, including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and territories against several defendants; the relief sought and allegations concerning the Company (including the products allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. However, to date, no complaint has been filed or served in this action. On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing the case in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No. 2724. On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02696), following on and supplementing its original action, asserting antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The parties anticipate that the lawsuit will be transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit, and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv 04862), and likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al., No. 616029/2019). The complaint asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff Counties seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 2:19-cv-07071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-05819-CMR). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-01972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. The new complaint is brought on behalf of both independent pharmacies and hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, including AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation) arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a publicly traded healthcare management organization opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-08438). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On March 2, 2020, the Company, Amneal, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of NY, LLC, were named in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by Harris County, Texas, which is the primary county for the Houston Metropolitan Area (Harris County, Texas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-cv-00733). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws; specifically, plaintiff alleges that it has paid approximately US$3.86 million since 2013 for products attributable to Amneal entities. On March 30, 2020, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order tagging the case for transfer to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. On December 26, 2019, the MDL court entered a case management order extending by stipulation certain pretrial discovery deadlines, including leaving open-ended the date by which, after consultation with MDL court's appointed Special Master, the parties are to agree upon bellwether claims or cases for, inter alia, class certification and/or trials. On February 20, 2020, the Special Master issued a Report & Recommendation and Proposed Order providing for the establishment of two bellwether trial tracks; Track One would involve a jury trial of the overarching conspiracy claims presented in the States Attorneys General's May 10, 2019 complaint (in which the Company and Amneal are defendants), and Track Two would consist of a second round of trials on one of three different individual drug conspiracy complaints (none of which involve the Company or any Amneal entities). Briefing in support of and in opposition to the Special Master's proposal is underway. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits over Prescription Opioid ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that it continues to face lawsuits related to prescription opioid pain relievers, including a multidistrict litigation pending as In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL"), in Ohio. The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. The Company is aware that other individuals and states and political subdivisions are filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that have promoted and sold prescription opioid pain relievers, and additional suits may be filed. The complaints, asserting claims under provisions of different state and Federal law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing of opioids, and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. The Company and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or intend to file motions to dismiss where possible. Each of the opioid-related matters is in its early stages. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend these cases. In light of the inherent uncertainties of civil litigation, the Company is not in a position to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters. On March 27, 2018, plaintiff American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Impax, and thirty-five other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of insurers that since January 1, 2010, allegedly have been wrongfully required to: (i) reimburse for prescription opioids that allegedly were promoted, sold, and distributed illegally and improperly by the pharmaceutical company defendants; and (ii) incur costs for treatment of overdoses of opioid medications, misuse of those medications, or addiction to them. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but plaintiff's complaint does not include any allegation of specific damage amounts. On or about May 2, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. On February 7, 2019, Kentucky River District Health Department requested that the Company execute a waiver of service in its case pending in the MDL. Plaintiff's putative class action complaint names Amneal and 20 other pharmaceutical companies and other entities as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for the economic injuries it suffered, on behalf of itself and similarly situated Kentucky health departments, as a result of their role in responding to an alleged "opioid epidemic." Plaintiff requests an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. In October 2019, the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and Impax were served with a putative class action complaint, which also names as defendants numerous manufacturers of opioid products (and certain corporate officers thereof), filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by several individuals who allegedly purchased prescription opioid medication in cash and/or with an insurance co-payment (Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00885). Plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased these prescription opioid products had defendants not allegedly misrepresented the products' "addiction propensities," and thereby suffered economic loss. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of all individuals who directly or indirectly purchased prescription opioid medication from January 2008 to the present in 31 different states, allege causes of action for violations of those states' antitrust laws and consumer protection statutes (and unjust enrichment), and seek, in addition to class certification, unspecified monetary damages (including actual, statutory, and punitive or treble damages) and equitable relief, including declaratory judgment and restitution. There are currently 26 cases brought by various West Virginia and Kentucky hospitals that have been consolidated in the state-court West Virginia Opioid Litigation Multi-Litigation Panel (the "MLP"). On November 20, 2019, the manufacturer defendants collectively filed a motion to dismiss, in which Amneal joined, and the Company filed its own individual motion to dismiss. The MLP has denied the manufacturer defendants' motion to dismiss, but has not yet ruled on the Company's separate motion. There also are five additional cases brought by West Virginia municipalities against the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and Impax which have been transferred to the MLP. The Amneal entities' responsive pleading deadline is May 18, 2020, and the Company intends to file motions to dismiss in those cases. The MLP also ordered an early mediation on February 26 and 27, 2020, during which plaintiffs did not make a settlement demand. The MLP has ordered a public nuisance bench trial to occur beginning on March 22, 2021. Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying a jury trial. The Company and certain of its affiliates recently have been named in approximately 915 cases now pending in the MDL court or in various state and territorial courts, including cases brought by: * Political subdivision / municipal entity plaintiffs from the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; * Third-party payor plaintiffs; * Individual plaintiffs; * Indian tribe plaintiffs; and * Hospital / healthcare provider plaintiffs. Requests for waivers for service of process have been transmitted by plaintiffs' counsel to defense counsel in relation to the Company and certain of its affiliates in most of these cases. In each case where service on the Company or its affiliates has been perfected, and the case is not stayed, responsive pleadings or pre-answer motions have been filed. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Opana Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that defendants in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation have filed motions for summary judgment. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson's LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("N.D. Ill.") for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. On November 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed reply briefs in further support of their motions for class certification. On January 17, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file joint surreply briefs in response thereto; plaintiffs filed responses on January 24, 2020. On February 5, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion for leave, and entered a case schedule to which the parties jointly stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15, 2021, though it will likely be delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 15, 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Amneal Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition." Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. APPLE INC: Fails to Protect Consumer Privacy Rights, Ohanian Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIGRAN OHANIAN and REGGE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC. and T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05162 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and deceptive marketing and advertising of their products. Defendant Apple manufactures, advertises and sells iPhone mobile devices with a known security flaw in the iOS software that allowed iMessage correspondence sent by iPhone users and FaceTime calls made by iPhone users to be improperly accessed by third parties. Apple's failure to disclose this information to consumers was a material omission because it misleads a reasonable consumer as to the data privacy and security features of the iPhone. Defendant T-Mobile also deceives consumers, including the Plaintiffs, by its practice of recycling phone numbers linked to SIM cards, and selling those SIM cards to consumers for use in the iPhone without requiring prior users to manually disassociate their Apple IDs from the phone numbers associated with the recycled SIM cards, hereby placing consumers' data and confidential personal information at risk. Apple Inc. is a multinational company that manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells computer hardware, software, and mobile devices, with its principal place of business located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a wireless mobile network operator that manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells SIM cards, with its principal place of business located at 12920 SE 38th St., Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron J. Solomon, Esq. OVED & OVED LLP 401 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 226-2376 ASIAN MOON: Faces Zhang Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------- Chengcheng Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIAN MOON RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ASIAN MOON; VICKIE S LI; and SHERRY LI, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-02776-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Zhang was employed by the Defendants as waiter. Asian Moon Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Asian Moon is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jfan@hanglaw.com ASTELLAS US: Miller et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses ------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN WOERTH MILLER, FAURUM SANKARI, ANGELA HEIMGARTNER, MICHAEL WACHALA, MARY BETH PREUSS, ERIC TERHAERDT, PATRICIA WALSH, and SHEILA EARLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Astellas US Retirement and Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. ASTELLAS US LLC; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASTELLAS US LLC; THE ASTELLAS RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC., NKA AON INVESTMENTS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1–14, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03882 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan, the Plaintiffs, and other participants by failing to act and decide in the best interests of Plan participants, which include: (1) selecting and retaining the Aon Hewitt collective investment trusts in the Plan despite the availability of better performing alternative investment options; (2) failing to monitor their appointees and delegees and their fiduciary process, which would have alerted any prudent fiduciary to the potential breach because of the unreasonable investment management fees and imprudent investment options; and (4) failing to remove appointees and delegees whose performance was inadequate. As a direct result of these breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered substantial losses. Astellas US LLC is a pharmaceutical product manufacturing limited liability company headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., now known as Aon Investments USA, Inc., is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Sean S. Soyars, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Scott T. Apking, Esq. 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO, 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com sapking@uselaws.com ATLAS FIELD: Daniel et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Foresters -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMER DANIEL and CHARLES STUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATLAS FIELD SERVICES, LLC; CRAIG TAYLOR; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04415 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions Code including: (1) failure to pay all contractual wages owed; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages owed; (3) failure to pay all minimum wages owed; (4) failure to provide timely meal periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide timely, complete, rest periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof; and (6) failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Stucker were employed by the Defendants as consulting utility foresters through October 2019 and March 2020, respectively. Atlas Field Services, LLC is a full-service Health, Safety & Environment (HSE) company headquartered in Houston, Texas. [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 ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BUCHANAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware Corporation and ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-19 00279232 (Filed May 21, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 25, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01277-JAM-DB to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages, unpaid overtime, and failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof. Atria Senior is a privately held, for-profit senior housing company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Crosman, Esq. Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq. Michael H. Lee, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: ccrosman@seyfarth.com elevy@seyfarth.com mhlee@seyfarth.com ATV INC: Faces Herndon Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATV, INC., et al. The case is styled as Dion Herndon, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATV INC. DBA AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. 20STCV25013 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2020). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Atv, Inc., retails auto parts. The Company offers automotive interiors and exteriors, steering wheels, airbag modules, instrument panels and related components, ventilators, and internal and external trim parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245-5629 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com BISMILLAH BAWARCHI: Martinez Sues over Unpaid Minimum and OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISAIS FLORES MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- BISMILLAH BAWARCHI INC. (D/B/A BAWARCHI INDIAN CUISINE), FRESH FOOD NYC INC. (D/B/A BAWARCHI INDIAN CUISINE), AZIZ A KHAN, and MOHAMMED A. MAHBUB, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04987 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Flores appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants employed a policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Flores' actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Flores at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate. Plaintiff Flores was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurants located in New York. Bismillah Bawarchi Inc., (d/b/a Bawarchi Indian Cuisine), and Fresh Food NYC Inc., (d/b/a Bawarchi Indian Cuisine), own, operate, or control two Indian restaurants located in New York under the name "Bawarchi Indian Cuisine."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fallace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that a motion for class certification has been filed in the consolidated putative class action suit pending before the Southern District of New York. On March 14, 2014, four putative U.S. class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to continue. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional plaintiffs Cho and Ulug. On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. Cho and Ulug filed their opening brief on February 20, 2020, and the Company filed its opposition brief on May 21, 2020. Fact discovery was completed on January 31, 2020, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed on November 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend an employment class action suit filed before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees’ employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Initial Settlement Approval Hearing on July 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that a preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2020, in the putative employment class action suit pending before the San Joaquin County Superior Court. On February 4, 2019, a putative employment class action and California Private Attorney General Act claim was filed against the Company in the San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging the Company (i) failed to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (ii) failed to pay all wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code Section 201. The complaint seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company filed its answer denying the allegations in the complaint on March 18, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. On August 22, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of the named plaintiff's wage statement claims. The Court took the motion under submission following oral argument on November 13, 2019, and the motion remains pending. The Court denied the motion on January 21, 2020. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement that is subject to Court approval. The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on June 11, 2020, and the preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2020. The parties will provide notice of the settlement to the class after the Court enters its order preliminarily approving the settlement. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Braverman Seek to Certify i3 Owners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BARRY BRAVERMAN, et al., v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00966-TJH-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Barry Braverman, Hakop Demirchyan, Joel Green, Dr. Glynda Roberson, and Edo Tsoar (California Plaintiffs), will move the Court on or after November 9, 2020, for an order: a. certifying California Plaintiffs' putative class in this litigation defined as: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a new BMW i3 with Range Extender model-year 2014-2016 (Class Cars) from an authorized BMW dealer on or before May 16, 2016, in California." Excluded from the Class are BMW North America and BMW AG, their employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, wholly- or partly-owned, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, BMW dealers, Class counsel and their employees, and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case, all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Classes, and governmental entities.; b. appointing themselves as class representatives; and c. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel. The legal claims for which certification are sought are: -- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 1791.1 & 1792; and -- A derivative Magnuson-Moss claim for implied warranty of merchantability under 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles. The Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts, apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers vehicle financing and leasing services. BMW of North America operates in the State of New Jersey.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Christopher Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES S CHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com - and - Jonathan A Michaels. Esq. MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW APLC 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1240 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 527-6900 Facsimile: (949) 581-6908 E-mail: jmichaels@mlgaplc.com - and - Hovanes Margarian, Esq. THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com BROADWAY S/S INC: Lara Seeks Proper Wages for Mechanics ------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS LARA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, -against- BROADWAY S/S INC., and AFTAB HUSSAIN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05010 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) is a civil action seeking damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' willful violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); (iii) the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL, NYLL Sec. 652(1), 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-2.1; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice containing specific categories of accurate information upon hire, NYLL Sec. 195(1); and (vi) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a Manhattan-based vehicle repair station and its owner and day-to-day overseer -- as a mechanic, from in or around July 2014 until March 16, 2020. Throughout his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL or the minimum wage required under the NYLL. Specifically, throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours virtually each week, yet Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at least at the rate of one and one-half times the minimum wage, or one and one-half times his regular rate, whichever was greater, for any hours that he worked in excess of forty in a week. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include overtime premiums and that brought his regular hourly rate below the minimum that New York requires for all hours worked. Additionally, in violation of New York law, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any wage statements on each payday or with any wage notice upon his hire. Broadway S/S Inc. is a New York-based vehicle repair station.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 BRUNSWICK CORP: Conditional Class Certification in Robles Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Duffin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Robles's Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned SANDY ROBLES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, d/b/a MERCURY MARINE, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1809, (E.D. Wis.). Plaintiff Sandy Robles commenced the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against her employer, Defendant Brunswick Corporation d/b/a Mercury Marine, alleging that Mercury Marine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly rounding the start and end times of its production and maintenance employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for compensation for all hours worked. Robles alleges this was done in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin wage and hour laws, and Wis. Admin. Code. Mercury Marine's corporate headquarters are located in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. It is a marine propulsion manufacturer and sells marine parts and accessories. Its Fond du Lac campus is broken into seven different plants: 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98. Each facility has production employees, but not every facility has maintenance employees. Before the court is Robles' motion for conditional class certification and court facilitated notice. The motion only addresses the potential federal law violation and asks the court to certify the following collective action class: All production and maintenance employees who are or have been employed by Mercury Marine at it's Fond du Lac campus, including Plants 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98 at any time since November 15, 2015. According to Mercury Marine, that proposed class would consist of over 3,500 current and former employees. Under the FLSA, a collective action may be maintained against any employer by any one or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. In determining whether the plaintiff and the putative collective action members are similarly situated, this court, like many other courts, follows a two-stage process. At the first stage, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable basis for believing that she is similarly situated to potential class members. The second stage in the collective action certification process occurs after conditional certification and normally when the defendant files a motion for decertification. At the second stage, the court must determine whether the plaintiffs who have opted in are, in fact, similarly situated. At this stage in the inquiry, the court's focus is not on whether any policy at Mercury Marine violated the FLSA. Rather the focus is on whether the admissible evidence in the record constitutes a modest factual showing as to the existence of a nexus between Robles and the members of the proposed class with regard to Mercury Marine's alleged policies and practice. Robles argues that all putative collective action members have been subjected to the same rounding policies and have not been compensated for any time they worked in the twenty-nine minutes before the beginning of their shift or in the fourteen minutes after their shift ended. This rounding policy, Robles argues, rounds only in Mercury Marine's favor and has led to significant differences between the scheduled work times and the amount of time actually worked. However, as Mercury Marine points out, at his deposition, Plaintiff David Hall admitted that he was never required to perform work during the pre- or post-shift periods, that he understood that he would only be paid from his scheduled start time until his scheduled end time unless his supervisor approved of him working outside of his scheduled shift, and that, by his own choice, he would sometimes start prep work before his shift started because it makes the day a lot smoother. Mercury Marine argues that no common policy exists among Robles and the putative collective action members because the FLSA allows it not to pay employees for the periods before and after their scheduled times as long as they do not perform work. It is undisputed that Robles and the putative collective action members are all subject to the same policy: they will be paid only for their scheduled shift unless prior approval for working additional time is approved by their supervisors. Having said that, only Robles testified that she was told she had to begin working upon punching in, even if it was before the start of her scheduled shift. No evidence has been offered that any other employee was so instructed. And while Plaintiff Alexandria Lockwood, David Hall, and Andrew Fox all state generally that their respective supervisors knew they were working before the start of their shift because they could see them working, whether that is in fact true will be an individualized determination for each supervisor. For example, Lockwood says that the work she performs before the start of her shift consists of talking to the person working at her workstation from the prior shift. Whether Lockwood's supervisor saw Lockwood talking to this other employee and recognized that it constituted "working" rather than just chatting will have to be determined, but the court will not be able to reach a general conclusion from that determination regarding what other supervisors who were supervising other employees knew. In short, although the bar is set low for determining whether a class ought to be conditionally certified, there nonetheless is a bar. Conditional certification is not automatic. And here, Robles has not demonstrated that she is similarly situated to the members of her proposed class such that the class ought to be conditionally certified. Accordingly, the Court denies Robles's motion for conditional class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/w9l2fal from Leagle.com. Sandy Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Summer H. Murshid , Hawks Quindel SC, Timothy P. Maynard , Hawks Quindel SC & Larry A. Johnson , Hawks Quindel SC, 54 Park Place, #400, Appleton, WI 54914 Brunswick Corporation, doing business as Mercury Marine, Defendant, represented by Sean M. Scullen -sean.scullen@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP & Steven M. Kruzel - steven.kruzel@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP. BTI GROUP: A1 On Track Sues in California Alleging TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BTI Group, et al. The case is styled as A1 On Track Sliding Door Repair and Installation, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BTI Group, a California corporation, DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:20-cv-04445 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. BTI Group is the largest and most active merger and acquisition ("M&A") firm serving the western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Noelle Buda, Esq. LEXICON LAW PC 633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 223-5900 Email: tiffany.buda@gmail.com BUILDING SERVICE: Lardo Sues Over Denial of Disability Pension -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- BUILDING SERVICE 32BJ PENSION FUND; TRUSTEES OF THE BUILDING SERVICE 32BJ PENSION FUND, as Plan Administrator; Trustees Hector Figueroa, Larry Engelstein, Kevin Doyle, Kyle Bragg, Howard I. Rothschild, Charles C. Dorego, John C. Santora, Fred Ward; and John Doe Trustees 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05047 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated participants in the Building Service 32 BJ Pension Fund against Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act section 502(a(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. sections 1132(a)(1)(B), for denying them disability retirement benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of the Pension Fund's Pension Plan and against the Trustees and Hector Figueroa, Larry Engelstein, Kevin Doyle, Kyle Bragg, Howard I. Rothschild, Charles C. Dorego, John C. Santora, Fred Ward, and John Doe Trustees 1-10 pursuant to ERISA section 404, 29 U.S.C. sections 1104, for breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, Plaintiff submitted a claim for employee benefits, pursuant to ERISA. He made various attempts to perfect his claim for benefits by providing additional information to satisfy the purported requirements of the Plan. Plaintiff met the requirements of Section 4.08(a) and (c) of becoming totally and permanently disabled while working in covered employment in that he provided a Social Security Disability Notice of Award showing that his disability began in December 2014, which was when he was still working, and he provided other medical and SSA documentation confirming that he is totally and permanently disabled. Despite the fact that they met the requirements for a disability pension under the plan, Plaintiff and the Class were denied disability pensions by the Pension Fund. Defendants failed to comply with the terms of the Plan when they denied Plaintiff and the Class' disability pension benefits in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1132 (a)(1)(B), and Defendants' failure to comply with the terms of the Plan was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants also acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they insisted that Plaintiff have a Social Security Disability Award letter that determined that he was totally and permanently disabled, even after he provided a letter from the Social Security Administration from October 2018 confirming that the Social Security Administration does not make determinations regarding permanent disability. Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund is an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. Trustees of the Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund are the Plan Administrator of the Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund, within the meaning of ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William D. Frumkin, Esq. Elizabeth Hunter, Esq. Jordan M. Kaplan, Esq. 1025 Westchester Avenue, Suite 309 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 468-6096 E-mail: ehunter@frumkinhunter.com wfrumkin@frumkinhunter.com BUMBLE HOLDING: King Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NICK KING, JR., DEENA FISCHER, and ELENA WEINBERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BUMBLE TRADING, INC., and BUMBLE HOLDING LTD., Case No. 5:18-cv-06868-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 15, 2020 for an order: 1. certifying these classes: DSL Settlement Class defined as: "all persons nationwide who purchased Bumble Boost during the Settlement Class Period"; ARL Settlement Class defined as: "all persons who purchased, within California, during the Settlement Class Period, Bumble Boost and had their credit card, debit card, and/or a third-party payment account charged as part of Bumble's automatic renewal program or continuous service program"; 2. appointing Nick King, Jr. as class representative of the ARL Settlement Class and Elena Weinberger and Deena Fischer as class representatives of the DSL Settlement Class; 3. appointing Grace E. Parasmo and Yitzchak H. Lieberman of Parasmo Lieberman Law and David C. Parisi and Suzanne Havens Beckman of Paris & Havens LLP as Class Counsel; 4. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement; 5. approving the form and manner of notice to the Settlement Class; 6. approving JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator; and 7. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing. The Parties have agreed to a total of $22.5 million in non-reversionary, monetary benefits to Monetary relief be distributed to the Settlement Classes after deduction for administrative costs, service awards to the Plaintiffs, and any fee and expense award to Class Counsel. Bumble develops application software. The company offers an online dating application that enables users to meet new people for dating, friendship, and relationship.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com - and - Grace E. Parasmo, Esq. Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq. PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW 7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505 Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (646) 509-3913 Facsimile: (877) 501-3346 E-mail: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Heredia Seeks Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MABEL L. HEREDIA, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting final approval to the Settlement, saying it is a fair, reasonable, and adequate result for Class Members. The Plaintiff said he achieved a valuable settlement for Class Members which provides significant protections including direct payments of $72.32 to each Class Member. On March 13, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and conditionally certified the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff alleges that CMS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by mailing consumers form letters to collect defaulted Discover Bank credit card debts, which offered settlements of those debts. Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency providing the highest level of delinquent receivables resolution.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Katelyn B. Busby, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com Philip@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz Sues in South Carolina Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Medical Education LLC. The case is styled as Bruce E. Katz, doing business as: Juva Skin and Laser Center MD PC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Medical Education LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-02524-JMC (D.S.C., July 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Capital Medical Education educates physicians and other aesthetic professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret A Collins, Esq. PALMETTO STATE LAW GROUP 1087 Harbor Drive, Suite B West Columbia, SC 29169 Phone: (803) 708-7442 Fax: (803) 753-9352 Email: meg@pslawsc.com CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Robin Pfahning filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Robin Pfahning v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit styled as Robin Pfahning, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00263 (Filed May 6, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on July 22, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Liam O'Grady. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for damages and other relief arising from Capital One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts for cash advances even after those cash advances are paid back in full, the lawsuit says. The appellate case is captioned as Robin Pfahning v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 19-2412, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROBIN PFAHNING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG, PC 1101 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314-2956 Telephone: 703-684-4333 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com - and - Sophia Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: 202-350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K Street Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-573-5118 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com Defendant-Appellee CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., is represented by: Colleen Rosannah Smith, Esq. Andrew James Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: 202-662-5431 E-mail: csmith@cov.com asoukup@cov.com CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA: Underpays Butchers, Munoz Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ANIBAL MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA, INC. (D/B/A CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA), FERNANDO GOMEZ, FERNEY GOMEZ, and OSCAR ANDRADE (A.K.A. EL PAJARO) (A.K.A EL PAJARO), Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02857 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, § 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Munoz worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Munoz appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Munoz the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Plaintiff Munoz was employed by Defendants as a butcher at the meat market in New York. Carniceria Hispanoamericana, Inc. (d/b/a Carniceria Hispanoamericana) owns, operates, or controls a meat market located in New York under the name "Carniceria Hispanoamericana".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fallace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CEDAR SHAKE: Court Grants Letter Rogatory Request in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Letter Rogatory in IN RE CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Document Relates to: ALL CLASS ACTIONS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00288-MJP. (W.D. Wash.) Courts have the inherent authority to issue Letters Rogatory and Letters of Request to Foreign nations, and may request that a foreign nation order a witness to provide testimony that will aid in the resolution of a matter pending in the United States. Class Plaintiffs moved the Washington District Court for an Order issuing a Letter Rogatory to the appropriate authorities in British Columbia, Canada for documents from Intertek Testing Services, NA Ltd., the third-party inspector with which Defendant Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau ("CSSB") has an inspection services agreement. Here, Class Plaintiffs have been informed by Intertek that it will produce documents as sought in a prepared Exhibit A only in response to a filed court Order. Thus, it is necessary to compel production of documents through a Letter Rogatory. Class Plaintiffs seek documents from Defendant CSSB's sole inspection entity to provide further evidence to prove the allegations in their Second Amended Complaints. For example, Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have (and have wielded) the power to prevent the sale of cedar shakes and shingles (CSS) made by CSSB member (Member) mills by red tagging product preventing its sale until the product is re-graded or re-inspected by CSSB's auditor, Clay Walker, or Intertek acting under Clay Walker's supervision. Defendants do not oppose the issuance of a Letter Rogatory compelling the documents identified. Accordingly, the Court grants Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Letter Rogatory Re: Document Subpoena to Intertek Testing Services, NA Ltd., and will execute the Letter Rogatory without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ulbqnjc 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 Mathew L. Harrington - MLH@stokeslaw.com - STOKES LAWRENCE. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- ABIONCA JONES, on behalf of all aggrieved employees of the Defendant in the State of California v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV23698 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2020), seeks to recover civil penalties for wage and hour violations pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide lawfully compliant meal periods and meal and rest periods premium compensation when no meal and rest periods were properly provided; and failed to pay all minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all the time they were suffered or permitted to work, and engaged in work. The Defendants operate the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. The Medical Center is an 886-bed hospital and multi-specialty academic health science center, which is a part of the Cedars-Sinai Health System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq. Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. Alex Kuner, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: 619 692 0800 Facsimile: 619 692 0822 E-mail: ghoUis@grahamhoUis.com vcordero@grahamhollis.com akuner@grahamhollis.com CELLULAR SALES: Granted Leave to Serve on Chapman ------------------------------------------------- In the case CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., a corporation; CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, a limited liability company; CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, a limited liability company, Petitioners, v. DAVID CHAPMAN, Respondent, Case No. 1:19CV768, (M.D. N.C.), Judge Thomas Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (1) granted Cellular Sales's motion for leave to serve Chapman with sufficient process and (2) denied Chapman's motion to dismiss or stay. The present dispute arose on June 18, 2019, when David Chapman allegedly disregarded his arbitration agreement and filed a lawsuit against Cellular Sales in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that Cellular Sales violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The lawsuit seeks the certification of a collective action and a class action. Petitioners Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("Cellular Sales TN"), Cellular Sales of North Carolina, LLC ("Cellular Sales NC"), and Cellular Sales of Pennsylvania, LLC ("Cellular Sales PA") (collectively, "Cellular Sales") filed a petition against Respondent David Chapman on July 29, 2019, seeking an order to compel arbitration pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Cellular Sales TN is a Tennessee corporation and the parent company of Cellular Sales NC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and Cellular Sales PA, a Pennsylvania limited liability company. Cellular Sales NC and Cellular Sales PA are authorized dealers of Verizon Wireless products and services and market and sell cellular products and wireless services in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, respectively. Chapman, a citizen of North Carolina, became employed by Cellular Sales NC in March 2017. Upon his employment, Chapman executed a Dealer Compensation Agreement, which set forth the terms of his compensation and the formula for calculating commissions. The agreement also contained a binding arbitration clause under which Chapman agreed to submit disputes to arbitration on an individual basis. Before the court is Chapman's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), and 12(b)(5), or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending a decision in a related action before a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Recognizing an issue with proper service, Cellular Sales filed a motion for leave to re-serve Chapman. Chapman argues that Cellular Sales' petition for an order compelling arbitration should be dismissed because of insufficient process and insufficient service of process, and that the North Carolina court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over Chapman. Cellular Sales responds that Chapman had actual notice of the proceedings and contends that dismissal is unwarranted because Chapman suffered no prejudice. Chapman's motion to dismiss for insufficient process and insufficient service of process is based on the same alleged deficiency failure to include a copy of the petition with the summons. Because a failure to include a copy of the petition is properly challenged under a Rule 12(b)(5) motion for insufficient service of process, the Court denies without prejudice Chapman's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(4). The Court further notes that it is uncontested that Cellular Sales failed to include a copy of the petition with the summons issued to Chapman, in violation of Rule 4. However, allowing Cellular Sales leave to correct the deficiencies in service will not prejudice Chapman, and it is apparent that proper service is likely to be accomplished. Cellular Sales argues that the failure to include a copy of the petition with the summons did not hinder Chapman's ability to file a timely response, so granting them leave to perfect service will result in no prejudice. The Court will exercise its discretion and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and grant Cellular Sales leave in which to effect proper service on Chapman. A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wdd9j3l from Leagle.com. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC & CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by C. LARRY CARBO, III - larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com - CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, PC, JULIE R. OFFERMAN - julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com - CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, PC & KYLE R. STILL - kstill@wyrick.com - WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP. DAVID CHAPMAN, Defendant, represented by LAURA L. NOBLE , THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, PLLC, 141 Providence Road, Suite 210, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514 CHARLES BAKER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CONRAD MURPHY, et al., v. CHARLES BAKER, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12481-PBS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order: 1. allowing the Defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, to the Plaintiffs refiling an action as to their individual claims; 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for appointment of counsel; and 3. directing the clerk to enter a separate order of dismissal. The Court said, "Conrad Murphy and Christopher Fladger, as pro se plaintiffs, cannot fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class that they have identified. Moreover, the court does not find that the complexity of the factual and legal issues raised warrant the appointment of counsel." This pro se civil rights action was initiated by Conrad Murphy and Christopher Fladger, each a civilly committed inmate confined to the Massachusetts Treatment Center. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights.[CC] CHEETAH MOBILE: Azure Funds Sues over 17% Drop in Share ------------------------------------------------------- AZURE FUNDS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEETAH MOBILE, INC.; SHENG FU; VINCENT ZHENYU JIANG; and THOMAS JINTAO REN, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile securities between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, Cheetah Mobile disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some of the Cheetah Mobile's apps had not been compliant with Google policies, resulting in certain invalid traffic." On this news, the Cheetah Mobile's share price fell $0.61, or nearly 17%, to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Cheetah Mobile's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that, as a result, there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising contracts with the Cheetah Mobile; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Cheetah Mobile's ability to attract new users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Cheetah Mobile's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Cheetah Mobile's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Cheetah Mobile Inc develops internet and mobile enhancement software and applications. The Company develop and operates and internet browser, and internet security, memory saving, power optimization, mobile games, and photo collage applications. Cheetah Mobile operates in China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid OT & Spread of Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ DINA MARISOL ROMERO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN and ROSARIO BALDWIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04991 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged unlawful employment policy and practice in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a housekeeper at the private residence located at 11 E 87th Street, Spt. 12F, New York, NY 10128 from approximately April 23, 2003 until on or about February 5, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants did not appropriately compensate her for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week although she was required by Defendants to work 10 hours a day. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay the "spread of hours" and overtime required by the federal and state law and regulations. Defendant Christopher Baldwin determines the wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants. Defendant Rosario Baldwin is the wife of Defendant Christopher Baldwin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: https://www.faillacelaw.com/contact-us/ COLLEGE VISTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to LVNs, Waters Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARICEL BELONIO WATERS v. COLLEGE VISTA, LLC dba COLLEGE VISTA POST-ACUTE; SUN-MAR HEALTH CARE, INC.; SUN-MAR NURSING CENTERS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV23520 (June 22, 2020), alleges that College Vista did not provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled for work performed pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that this is so because she and others Licensed Vocational Nurses would often perform work before clocking in and after clocking out as it was common practice for LVNs at the facility. She asserts that management was unequivocally aware of the latter and the fact that she and others were not being paid for all hours worked Ms. Waters started working for College Vista in November 2019 as a Licensed Vocational Nurse. Her employment ended on March 25, 2020. She was considered an hourly, non-exempt employee. College Vista is a health care provider.[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 CORVIAS: Three Fort Bragg Families File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Rachael Riley, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that three Fort Bragg families have filed a class-action complaint against the installation's housing partner, claiming their on-post homes have mold, lead-based paint and wood rot. The 64-page complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on June 25. Staff Sgt. Shane Page, Spc. Spenser Ganske and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Wilkes are the plaintiffs in the case represented by Raleigh-based Penry and Reimann law firm and South Carolina-based Bauer and Metro law firm, court documents state. The documents say the exact number of plaintiffs is unknown but there could be "thousands of members" in the proposed class-action lawsuit. The complaint was filed against Corvias; its founder, John Picerene; Heather Fuller, Corvias' operations director at Fort Bragg; and Corvias' affiliates. Corvias is Fort Bragg's housing manager. "We're aware of the lawsuit that was filed, however it does not reflect accurate details, said Mary Humphreys, a director with Corvias. "We intend to dispute what is described." The plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial and and damages exceeding $5 million. Among the claims, the complaint alleges the defendants leased homes with known problems that caused "lack of effective moisture and air barriers between exterior cladding and wall cavities in all homes." The problems allegedly caused mold, wood rot and other conditions that threatened the health and safety of the plaintiffs, as workers were allegedly instructed to conceal the defects from tenants, the complaint states. The complaint alleges that when Corvias entered into its lease with Fort Bragg in 2003, its representatives were aware of an environmental baseline survey of lead paint in 1993. The information about lead-based paint and its hazards was not provided to residents, the complaint alleges. The complaint alleges the defendants breached contract obligations, shoddy repairs were made to homes, misleading records were kept and tenants were threatened with punitive damages if they refused to sign new leases. Page has lived in Fort Bragg post housing since August 2016. Ganske has lived on post since September. Wilkie has lived on post since March 2017. The complaint alleges the defendants collected "many millions in fees" for construction, development and management of the homes, with maintenance expenses covered by renters' base housing allowance. "Documents will show that defendants received iron-clad assurances of profit while class plaintiffs lived in slum-like conditions," the complaint alleges. The complaint says Page first noticed water damage to his home in September 2016, with Corvias workers allegedly painting over the damage "instead of repairing its cause." In the following months, the home was infested with ants, cracks appeared in walls, the heating and air conditioning ventilation system failed, and most calls for repairs were "tardy and insufficient," the complaint states. The complaint alleges mold was found in the home by 2018, and in 2019, Page received an email from Corvias asking him to renew his lease or that he would face $100 in monthly fees, despite his original lease requiring renewal. When Wilkies and his family moved into their home, they noticed cracked bricks on the exterior, a sagging floor inside and plumbing problems. The complaint notes a canceled work order for roof repairs, improper work and a leaking bathroom toilet causing more damage to an already sagging bathroom floor. In December 2019, the roof and inside ceiling collapsed, as one worker fell through. The complaint alleges maintenance workers told Wilkies they couldn't promise another home wouldn't have similar maintenance problems. He has filed 33 work orders with Corvias. When moving in, squirrels were living in the attic of Ganske's home, with urine soaking through the living room ceiling, the complaint says. Water instruction caused mold to grow in the window frame of their daughter's bedroom. There was a large crack in the ceiling that extended down the wall, dirty carpet with nails underneath and electrical outlets in the bathroom not working, the complaint states. The family submitted work orders but did not receive a response for months, until Corvias representatives told the family in April 2019 that their work orders were deleted. Ganske's wife found the heating and ventilation system was leaking and covered in mold, with water in the closet and a repairman using a vacuum to remove the water, the complaint alleges. With more mold found in the house, Ganske filed a formal complaint with his command. Corvias sent a contractor to remove the mold, who showed Ganske's wife the attic soaked in water and allegedly told her he'd seen similar problems in other homes and was not allowed to tell residents mold was present, the complaint states. Fuller came to the Ganske's home and told the family there were no defects and that Corvias was no longer conducting mold tests in Fort Bragg homes, the complaint alleges. "Ganske asked to be relocated to another home, but Fuller said additional charges would apply which the Ganskes could not afford," the complaint alleges. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY KRISTY, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV366341 (Filed April 28, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on June 22, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-04119 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code Section 203 of up to 30 working days of wages for failure to pay wages due when employment terminates. The Plaintiff seeks these penalties on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees in California whose employment terminated during the three years preceding the lawsuit. Costco is an American multinational corporation, which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN] The Defendant Costco represented by: David D. Kaduem, Esq. Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com gwestbrook@seyfarth.com CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Arun Yang Removed as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of New York County ordered the removal of Arun Yang as lead plaintiff in the case captioned A. YANG, JACQUELINE SUBRAMANIAM, MORGAN CASTILLA, E. STEEL, DAWN FADELY, and P. SHARMA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION and RUDD REALTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Docket No. 155681/2017, Motion Seq. No. 008, 2020 NY Slip Op 30008 (N.Y. Sup.). The class action involves alleged rent overcharges in a building located at 28 Bedford Street, New York, New York. In December 2018, the Court certified the case as a class action and appointed A. (Arun) Yang and Dawn Fadely as lead/representative plaintiffs in the certified class action. In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend the complaint changing the relevant "look back" period from four to six years prior to the filing of the complaint; removing Yang as a lead/representative plaintiff; appointing Morgan Castilla as a lead/representative plaintiff; and amending the class definition to reflect the change in the look back and that the J-51 benefits previously received by the building have now expired. Plaintiffs cite to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("HSTPA"), signed on June 14, 2019, which extended the look back window for rent overcharge claims from four to six years. Plaintiffs submit an affidavit from Castilla and argue that she, like Fadely, has claims typical of the class and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Castilla states in her July 19, 2019 affidavit that she has resided at the building since October 1, 2015, and seeks to be named a lead plaintiff and class representative and to represent the subclass of current tenants. Plaintiffs argue in reply that to the extent Defendants argue Yang is not a suitable class representative, the issue is moot if the relief sought by Plaintiffs to remove him as a class representative is granted. As a general rule, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit and the decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is committed to the sound discretion of the court. As to the issue of the proposed change in lead/representative plaintiff removing Yang and adding Castilla, as a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Castilla, along with Subramaniam, Steel, and Sharma have remained in the caption as named plaintiffs. In the class action complaint both as originally filed and proposed as an amendment in the instant motion, Yang, Subramaniam, Castilla, Steel, Fadely, and Sharma are the named plaintiffs suing Defendants on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Nevertheless, once Plaintiffs elect to proceed with certification naming some, but not all, of the originally named plaintiffs as class representatives, or lead plaintiffs, the meaning is the same, those originally named plaintiffs who will not be class representatives should be removed from the caption in the interest of clarity and to conform the pleading to the facts of the case. That said, based upon the papers submitted, the Court will approve the removal of Yang as a class representative and the appointment of Castilla as a class representative. In a class action involving multiple class representatives, a class representative may be removed as a class representative, and this is not fatal to the certification of the class. Here, the removal of Yang as a class representative is anticipatory in nature based upon Defendants' arguments that Yang is not an adequate class representative. Further, the Court finds there is no prejudice to Defendants as to the addition of Castilla on substantially similar grounds as those submitted in support of the appointment of Fadely, which was previously approved by the Court without objection as to substance. Discovery in the action is not yet complete, and Defendants may notice the deposition of Castilla in accordance with the Court's recent order. As such, the branch of the motion removing Yang and inserting Castilla as a class representative is granted, but the names of Yang, Subramanian, Steel, and Sharma must be removed as named plaintiffs from both the caption and the body of complaint, as, now that the class has been certified, the named plaintiffs, only, shall be the class representatives/lead plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the New York County Supreme Court's Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/utpx2cc from Leagle.com. CREST HOTEL: Underpays Housekeepers, Tello Claims ------------------------------------------------- NORMA N. TELLO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC, d/b/a CREST HOTEL SUITES, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22702-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff had been employed by Defendant for 3 years and 6 months as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly paid housekeeper from approximately September 1, 2016 to March 23, 2020, which is the date he was laid-off because the Crest Hotel Suites hotel closed due to the COVID-19 quarantine. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals regularly worked 5 days per week, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. or a total weekly average of 45 hours during their employment with Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay them overtime wages for the work they performed in excess of 40 hours. Moreover, Defendant did not allow Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals to take 30 minutes of bona fide lunchtime, which constitute additional 2.5 hours unpaid overtime hours. Crest Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Crest Hotel Suites is a boutique hotel in the heart of South Beach in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway --------------------------------------------------- Cumulus Media Inc. is defending itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed by two individual plaintiffs in Georgia related to the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and costs than other available investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any judgment. Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company, owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One. The company offers content through approximately 428 owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. CUYAHOGA, OH: Papp Alleges Discrimination of Female Jail Guards --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA PAPP, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH, Defendant, Case No. CV 20 934156 (Ohio Common Pleas Court, June 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged discriminatory practices in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.02. Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated persons were hired by Defendant as female corrections officers and/or jail guards. Plaintiff claims that only female corrections officers and/or jail guards were required by Defendant to act as guards of male inmates at the jail, but did not require male employees to act as guards of female inmates. As a result, female guards were consistently and pervasively subjected to sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and lewd acts, comments and gestures from the male inmates for at least two years and continuing through the present. Although Defendant was informed and made aware by Plaintiff and the class members about those offensive and dangerous conduct by inmates, Defendant failed to take action and refused to prevent, discipline, investigate, or bring charges against the inmates. Moreover, Plaintiff and other class members were still assigned by Defendant at the male inmates' jail and were continually subjected to sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Cuyahoga County is a county located in the northeastern part of the U.S. state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the U.S.-Canada maritime border. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Tel: (440) 352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com - and – Thomas D. Robenalt, Esq. John Colan, Esq. THE ROBENALT LAW FIRM, INC. 23550 Center Ridge Rd., Ste. 103 Westlake, OH 44145 Tel: 216-223-7535 Fax: 216-307-2352 Email: trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com jcolan@robenaltlaw.com DCH REGIONAL: Court Denies Dismissal of McAteer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the U.S. District for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, refused to dismiss the case captioned MITCHELL McATEER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DCH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; DCH HEALTH SYTEMS; AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00859-MHH, (N.D. Ala.). DCH Health Systems, Inc. provides medical services and operates a medical facility called DCH Regional Medical Center. Defendant DCH Regional Medical Center is affiliated with DCH Health Systems, Inc. DCH entered into contracts with health insurance providers, including Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, to provide medical services to insured patients at contracted rates. Those agreements obligate DCH to provide medical services to patients at the contract rate, bill the patients' insurance carriers, and accept payment from the patients' insurance carriers in satisfaction of the patients' debts. On behalf of a proposed plaintiff class, Mitchell McAteer alleges that DCH and Avectus wrongfully billed and collected payments from insured patients and collected payments that exceeded what the DCH defendants were entitled to recover under their contracts with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama and other insurers. Mr. McAteer seeks recovery on seven counts: (1) violation of Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Acts ("ADTPA"); (2) tortious interference with contractual relationship/business expectancy; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) money paid by mistake; (5) civil conspiracy; (6) breach of contract; and (7) injunctive relief. Before the Court is a renewed motion to dismiss filed by defendants DCH Regional Medical Center and DCH Health Systems, and a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC. DCH and Avectus argue that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over these state law claims under the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) home-state exception. CAFA grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts over class actions in which (1) any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from the state of citizenship of any defendant, (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and (3) the proposed plaintiff class contains at least 100 members. The home-state exception applies if two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. The parties agree that the DCH defendants are citizens of Alabama and primary defendants and that Avectus is not a citizen of Alabama. The parties dispute whether Avectus is a primary defendant under CAFA. If Avectus is not a primary defendant, then the home-state exception will apply, and the Court may not exercise jurisdiction. If Avectus is a primary defendant, then the home-state exception will not apply, and the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Mr. McAteer's action. Mr. McAteer asserts against Avectus the following tort claims: violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act; tortious interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy; and civil conspiracy. Each claim rests on a similar factual predicate. According to Mr. McAteer, Avectus evaluated his patient file, contacted him about a potential settlement, negotiated a settlement amount with him, and agreed to accept that amount as payment for his medical expenses, despite having knowledge that he had health insurance coverage from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. While DCH's act of sending patient files to Avectus is a necessary pre-condition of Avectus's alleged improper collection efforts, Mr. McAteer does not seek to hold Avectus liable for DCH's conduct. Instead, Mr. McAteer's claims against Avectus are based on Avectus's debt-collection efforts, in which Avectus independently reviews and investigates patient files submitted by DCH and determines by exercising its own judgment whether it can recover a patient's medical bills. Those allegations, if true, demonstrate that Avectus caused direct harm to Mr. McAteer and similarly situated DCH patients. Recovery against Avectus would follow directly from Avectus's interactions with Mr. McAteer, as opposed to DCH's interactions with Mr. McAteer. Avectus argues that its exposure is insignificant compared to DCH's exposure because the class, by definition, includes persons for whom Avectus may not have played any role in obtaining payment. But Avectus and DCH have not provided factual support for this conclusory statement. Avectus argues that it cannot be a primary defendant on Mr. McAteer's equitable claims for unjust enrichment and money paid by mistake because, under the agreement between Avectus and DCH, Avectus received only a small percent of any alleged unlawful payment by the members of the putative class. As a result, Avectus argues, on the quasi-contract claims, it would not sustain a substantial loss as compared to other defendants if found liable. But that does not matter because Avectus is a real and substantial target of the plaintiffs' tort claims for damages, and district courts look at a lawsuit holistically to determine which defendants are the real targets of the litigation. CAFA's home-state exception does not apply, the Court opines. Thus, the Court denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/szst47s from Leagle.com. Mitchell McAteer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Allen Schreiber , SCHREIBER LAW FIRM, 4275 Executive Sq, Ste 200, La Jolla, CA 92037, Lauren Elizabeth Miles - lauren.miles@beasleyallen.com - Beasley Allen, C. Lance Gould , BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, 218 Commerce Street, Montgomery, AL 36104, Leslie Lee Ann Pescia - Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com - BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC & Wilson Daniel Miles, III -dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC. DCH Regional Medical Center, Defendant, represented by James J. Jenkins, PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER LLP & Terri Olive Tompkins, PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER, 1201 Greensboro Avenue Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 DCH Health Systems, Defendant, represented by James J. Jenkins , PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER LLP. Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Bessiere Martin - kmartin@bradley.com - BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Zachary A. Madonia - zmadonia@bradley.com - BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP. DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Proctor Suit Over Futures Prices Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES HERBERT PROCTOR, III ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03821 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2020) arises from Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Futures contracts and Eurodollar Futures contracts that trade on United States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade, during the period at least January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., and the common law. According to the complaint, Defendants manipulated the prices of Treasury and Eurodollar Futures by employing a classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," whereby Defendants placed orders for Treasury and Eurodollar Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to these markets and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, like Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants repeated the scheme throughout the Class Period and successfully manipulated Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to artificial levels throughout the Class Period. Plaintiff's allegations and claims are made on information and belief (except as to allegations specifically pertaining to Plaintiff, which are made on personal knowledge) based on the investigation conducted by and under the supervision of Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff transacted in Treasury Futures during the Class Period, including purchases and sales of futures on the CBOT. Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Brian P. O’Connell, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4882 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Robert Charles Alleges Spoofing of Treasury Futures ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03913 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the complaint, Deutsche Bank Securities and its traders are engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive spoofing scheme across the full range of U.S. Treasury Futures market from 2009 to December 2013 in order to manipulate futures prices. The Defendants entered orders to buy or sell U.S. Treasury Futures instruments on commodity exchanges even though they never intended to execute those orders. Deutsche Bank's deceptive orders created an artificial appearance of market demand and artificial prices that, in turn, induced other market participants to act. Deutsche Bank then took advantage of the movement that the artificial prices of its deceptive orders had caused by cancelling the deceptive orders and turning around to purchase or sell those instruments at the now artificially low or high prices and quantities, all to the detriment of those traders who acted based on the false belief that the deceptive orders were legitimate and intended to be executed. Robert Charles Class A, L.P. is a limited partnership with principal place of business located in San Diego, California. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers investment advisory services, with its principal place of business is located at 60 Wall Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Chad E. Bell, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 - and – Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Thomas K. Boardman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 Facsimile: (212) 233-6334 E-mail: pbarile@scott-scott.com tboardman@scott-scott.com - and – Christopher M. Burke, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com - and – Louis F. Burke, Esq. LOUIS F. BURKE PC 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 682-1700 E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com DIMARE HOMESTEAD: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ABELINO OCHOA, and all others similarly suited under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. DIMARE HOMESTEAD, INC., a Florida corporation, PAUL J. DIMARE, individually, Case No. 2020-012441-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 23, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-22590-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts claim against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. DiMare operates as a fruits and vegetable distribution company. The Company produces and supplies tomatoes, melons, citrus fruits, and vegetables. Dimare Homestead serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Stefany, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 225 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606-4127 Telephone: (813) 251-1210 Facsimile: (813) 253-2006 E-mail: dstefany@anblaw.com - and - Steven R. Eardon, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Ave., Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Facsimile: (305) 445-7801 Facsimile: (305) 442-1578 E-mail: sreardon@anblaw.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Vlasa Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER VLASA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00921-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff 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 plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint her as the class representative, and appoint her 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 Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com DOLLAR BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- PRINZO & ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR BANK FSB; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00961-PLD (W.D. Pa., June 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, seeking compensation from Defendants, who refuse to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") that requires it to pay out of the compensation it received for processing PPP loans, for services Plaintiff Prinzo and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II). The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant’s agent (e.g., attorney or accountant). According to the complaint, Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to complete the final step of the process and based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing applications. The Defendants' failure to pay agents is in blatant violation of PPP regulations stating that agent fees "will be paid by the lender out of the fees the lender receives from SBA." Plaintiff Prinzo & Associates is a Certified Public Accounting firm organized in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in McMurray, Pennsylvania. Dollar Bank is full service regional bank which operates 70 branches throughout Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 737-9981 Email: esk@mccunewright.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Walden Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lititia Walden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cavalry SPV I LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-01769-L (N.D. Tex., July 2, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions provides nationwide consumer collection services to industries, including Banking, Student Loan, Debt Purchasing, Heath Care, Retail, Telecommunication and Utilities, and On Line Lending.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com - and - Nayeem Nur Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM NUR MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St., #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (936) 718-7467 Email: Nayeem@nnmpc.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MAKURAT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00924 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff 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 plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint the Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Faces Brown Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- BRAD BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM CORPORATION; and EQM MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-00434 (S.D. W.Va., June 25, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages and damages. The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as coating inspector. Equitrans Midstream Corporation owns, operates, acquires, and develops midstream assets in the Appalachian Basin. The Company manages natural gas transmission, storage, and gathering systems, as well as high-and low-pressure gathering lines. Equitrans Midstream serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. James S. Nelson, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, 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 tjones@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 EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY GARTHWAIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the EVERSOURCE 401(K) PLAN f/k/a NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY; THE EVERSOURCE PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; THE EVERSOURCE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE and DOES No. 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00902 (D. Conn., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan, the Plaintiff, and other participants because they failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to participants and they selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and throughout the relevant period. In addition, Eversource and the Committees breached their fiduciary monitoring duties as they failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of their appointees or have a system in place for doing so; failed to monitor their appointees' fiduciary processes, which would have alerted a prudent fiduciary to the breaches of fiduciary duties; and failed to remove appointees whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the Plan. As a direct result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan and its participants, including the Plaintiff, have lost millions of dollars of retirement savings. Eversource Energy Service Company is an energy delivery company headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and – James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com - and – Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1401 Dove Street, Suite 510 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (323) 510-4060 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com EYM PIZZA: Robertson et al. Seek Refund for Out-of-Pocket Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAKYRA ROBERTSON and LUTHER BURKMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EYM PIZZA OF GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Texas Limited Liability Company, EYM PIZZA OF WISCONSIN, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 3;20-cv-01753-C (N.D. Tex., July 1, 2020) is a collective complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as an hourly paid delivery drivers -- Plaintiff Robertson was from approximately March 2020 to the present, while Plaintiff Burkman was from approximately February 2017 to the present. According to the complaint, Defendant required each delivery drivers to maintain and provide a safe, functioning, insured, and legally-operable automobile to make deliveries, and to bear the "out-of-pocket" expenses associated with their vehicles such as gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and repairs. Consequently, Plaintiffs and all others delivery drivers typically experienced lower gas mileage, more rapid vehicle depreciation, and greater vehicular expenses, and they pay significantly higher automobile insurance rates. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants systematically failed to adequately reimburse their delivery drivers, including Plaintiffs, for their automobile expenses which constitute a kickback to Defendants. EYM Pizza of Georgia, LLC and EYM Pizza of Wisconsin operate Pizza Hut restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Meredith Mathews, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Emails: jay@foresterhaynie.com mmathews@foresterhaynie.com - and – C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com FINJAN HOLDINGS: Docs on Fortress Merger Lack Info, Post Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.; DANIEL CHINN, ERIC BENHAMOU; GLENN DANIEL; JOHN GREENE; HARRY KELLOGG; GARY MOORE; ALEX ROGERS; MICHAEL SOUTHWORTH; CFIP GOLDFISH HOLDINGS LLC; and CFIP GOLDFISH MERGER SUB INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00900-UNA (D. Del., July 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and misleading solicitation statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the proposed merger agreement between Finjan Holdings and Fortress Investment Group LLC. The solicitation statement omits material information with respect to the proposed merger which includes Finjan's financial projections; the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis performed by Finjan's financial advisor, Atlas Technology Group, LLC; and the timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment and directorship of Finjan's officers and directors. The omissions in the solicitation statement are material to the Plaintiff and the Class since they will be deprived of their entitlement to make a fully informed decision with respect to the proposed transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the expiration of the tender offer. Finjan Holdings, Inc. is an online security and technology company that maintains its principal executive offices at 2000 University Avenue, Suite 600, East Palo Alto, California. CFIP Goldfish Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and parent company of CFIP Goldfish Merger Sub Inc. CFIP Goldfish Merger Sub Inc. is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of CFIP Goldfish Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com FINJAN HOLDINGS: Merger Docs Have Incomplete Info, Grier Says ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT GRIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL CHINN, ERIC BENHAMOU, GLENN DANIEL, JOHN GREENE, HARRY KELLOGG, GARY MOORE, ALEX ROGERS, and MICHAEL SOUTHWORTH, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04343 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff is one of the shareholders of Finjan common stock. According to the complaint, Defendant Finjan entered into an agreement and plan merger with Fortress Investment Group LLC on June 10, 2020 whereby Finjan common stock shareholders will receive $1.55 in cash for each share of Finjan stock they own. However, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2020, to convince Finjan shareholders to tender their shares. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants omitted material information on the Recommendation Statement, which was necessary for Finjan shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to tender their shares. The omitted information includes Finjan's unlevered free cash flow projections for 2020-2024 and all other projections for 2020-2024, and the amount each Board member stands to receive upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. Daniel Chinn is the Chairman of the Board and director of Finjan. Eric Benhamou, Glenn Daniel, John Greene, Harry Kellogg, Gary Moore, Alex Rogers, and Michael Southworth are directors of Finjan. Finjan Holdings, Inc. operates a cybersecurity firm focusing in intellectual property licensing and enforcement, mobile security application development, and investing in cybersecurity technologies and intellectual property. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Brower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (213) 446-6652 Fax: (212) 202-7880 Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com - and – Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Tel: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com FIREBIRD FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mejia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Eduard Mejia v. Firebird Freight Services Corp., and James Walegir, Case No. 708451/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated their overtime wage and minimum wage, in violation of the New York Labor Law, and the New York Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant. Firebird Freight is a family owned and operated trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: 718 740-1000 Facsimile: 718 740-2000 FLOOR & DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Certify Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GERMMA HAMMOND on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01099 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of a collective action and authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to notify: "all current and former full time Hourly Workers who worked for F&D at any time from December 10, 2016 to the present and who were paid using the Kronos timekeeping system"; 2. directing the Defendant to provide, within 10 days, the names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, positions held, and locations worked of all putative employees; 3. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to notify all such present and former employees on an expedited schedule by mail, by e-mail, and by text message; and 4. giving all such present and former employees similarly situated to the plaintiffs to have 90 days from the date the Defendant provides their names and address to the Plaintiff's counsel to mail an opt-in form to the Plaintiff's counsel for filing in the Court. The Defendant offers vinyl coverings, ceramic tiles, floor molding, decorative glass, counter tops, finishing accessories, and wood flooring products.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Diana J. Nobile, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com djn@mselaborlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. Russell R. Bruch, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 Facsimile: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com russell.bruch@morganlewis.com - and - Keane A. Barger, Esq. Katharine R. Cloud, Esq. RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615) 320-3737 E-mail: kbarger@rwjplc.com kcloud@rwjplc.com FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit vs. Lee County Sheriff Dept. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, has dismissed the amended complaint in the case captioned DAVID BAKER, JR., ELGRON TAYLOR, JOHN WALTERS, BRANDON FRANCISQUE, C. RODRIGEZ, MICHAEL WILKINS, EARL JAY SLATON, ERIK THOMAS BARTLESON and RICHARD HOLLOWAY, Plaintiffs, v. CARMINE MARCENO, TRINITY FOOD SERVICE GROUP INC and LEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-226-FtM-38MRM. (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs are nine pro se detainees who commenced the federal class action suit because the food served at the Lee County jail allegedly amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The Lee County Sheriff's Department moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the pleading makes incoherent allegations, does not separate claims into discrete counts, and asserts general accusations not targeted at the specific Defendants. The Sheriff identifies another issue: this is a putative class action suit with Plaintiff David Baker Jr., a pro se prisoner, to serve as the proposed representative. The Court agrees with the Sheriff. No pro se litigant can serve as a class representative. Not allowing Baker to represent to the class also follows the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, which stops inmates from joining in a single civil rights suit to share the mandatory filing fee. The Amended Complaint also does not allege enough factual matter to state a plausible Eighth Amendment violation, the Court finds. To state a claim for an unconstitutional condition of confinement, as alleged here, extreme deprivations are required. Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim centers on them allegedly being deprived 2,800 daily calories. But nowhere do they cite any regulations establishing this caloric minimum to plead an extreme deprivation. Nor do they allege facts showing that the jail's food poses an unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health. Thus, the Court granted Motion to Dismiss lodged by the Lee County Sheriff's Department. A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vaavfa3 from Leagle.com. David Baker, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se. Elgron Taylor, Plaintiff, pro se. John Walters, Plaintiff, pro se. Brandon Francisque, Plaintiff, pro se. C. Rodrigez, Plaintiff, pro se. Michael Wilkins, Plaintiff, pro se. Earl Jay Slaton, Plaintiff, pro se. Erik Thomas Bartleson, Plaintiff, pro se. Richard Holloway, Plaintiff, pro se. Carmine Marceno & Lee County Sheriff's Department, Defendants, represented by Kyle Dudek -kyle.dudek@henlaw.com - Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA & John McQueen Miller, III - john.miller@henlaw.com - Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA. Trinity Food Service Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Christina Marshon Fears ,1 State Farm Plz B-3, Bloomington, IL 61710-0001 & Leonor M. Lagomasino- llagomasino@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. FPA MULTIFAMILY: Lawrence Seeks Refund for March & April Rent ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FPA MULTIFAMILY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01517-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2020), arises from the Defendant's rescission, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated college students who entered a lease agreement with FPA Multifamily, alleges that the Defendant refused to refund the pro-rated money they paid for the months of March and April despite the fact that they were not able to use and enjoy the Defendant's rental services because they were forced to evacuate the premises in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant continues to send debt collection correspondence to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2020 in an attempt to collect rent payment for services that the Defendant cannot provide due to the closure of university campuses. The Defendant's demand for payment and refusal to provide partial refunds defies equity, common sense and is in diametrical opposition to the Governor and President's directives concerning the dangers of staying in the facilities. Mr. Lawrence signed a lease for a room at The Social 2700 Student Spaces Apartments owned by the Defendant for the Fall 2019-Summer 2020 academic school year. FPA Multifamily, LLC is a real estate and property management company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather H. Jones, Esq. William Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Toni Fore, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Froedtert Health Inc., Case No. 19-CV-1488 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: -- granting conditional class certification; and -- approving a notice to the class consisting of: "all hourly non-exempt Froedtert employees who was employed by Froedtert on or after October 10, 2016 who either received a unique user name and password from Froedtert, or was eligible to qualify to receive weekend premium pay, wellness works payments, or fitness center attendance payments from Froedtert, whether or not they ever actually qualified to receive the payments." Froedtert Hospital, located in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, is a teaching hospital and a Level I adult trauma center, one of two such facilities in Wisconsin.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com GALLITOS MEXICAN: Nocelotl et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRA NOCELOTL, JORGE LUIS CHUMIL YAXON, and TEODORO CUEVAS LUCERO individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- GALLITOS MEXICAN URBAN KITCHEN INC (D/B/A SAN BLAS), JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A OJALA) GALLITOS MEXICAN URBAN KITCHEN INC. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), BAHAR MIT RANA REST CORP. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), AQSA FOOD CORP. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), BAHAR REST CORP. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), BAHAR H KHANDAKAR, ROCKY DOE, and IVAN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02919 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) seeks payment for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, Section 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiffs were employed as a waitress, a delivery worker, a dishwasher and cooks at the restaurants located in New York. Defendants own, operate, or control two Spanish Restaurants, located in New York under the names "San Blas" and "Ojala."[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 GEO GROUP: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Novoa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant The Geo Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Raul Novoa, et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02514-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: (1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (2) denying the Defendant's motion to exclude certain declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of the Motion; and (3) vacating the hearing set for December 2, 2019, on the Motion to Exclude. The Court said a separate class certification order will be filed concurrently with order, defining the classes and appointing class counsel. On December 19, 2017, Raul Novoa filed this putative class action complaint against the Defendant. The putative class action is brought by current and former immigration detainees against the operator of an immigration detention facility located in the City of Adelanto, California. Since May 2011, GEO has operated the Adelanto facility as a subcontractor for the City of Adelanto, which entered into an Intergovernmental Service Agreement ("IGSA") with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to hold immigration detainees at the facility. On August 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file a third amended complaint. The TAC added Abdiaziz Karim and Ramon Mancia as Plaintiffs, amended the class definitions, and added two causes of action. The TAC alleges seven causes of action arising from the Plaintiffs' detention at California's Adelanto Detention Center, including violation of California's Minimum Wage Law; unjust enrichment; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and violation of California's Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Raul Novoa, et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc., Case No. 19-80169, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents RAUL B. NOVOA, JAIME CAMPOS FUENTES, ABDIAZIZ MOHAMED KARIM and RAMON MANCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 310-474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel Henry Charest, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com - and - Lydia Wright, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: lwright@burnscharest.com - and - Robert Andrew Free, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 Telephone: (844) 321-3221 Facsimile: (615) 829-8959 E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com Defendant-Petitioner THE GEO GROUP, INC., is represented by: Damien DeLaney, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-533-5920 E-mail: damien.delaney@akerman.com GLENS FALLS: Improperly Charges Overdraft & NSF Fees, Richard Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, DAPHNE RICHARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00734-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, Glens Falls National Bank is engaged in a practice of charging multiple overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fees for a single electronic transaction of its debit account holders, including the Plaintiff. The bank assesses the fees using an improper version of the balance in a member's account after holding the authorized funds, causing additional confusion and ambiguity. Under the terms and conditions of the contracts entered by the Plaintiff and Class members with Glen Falls, the bank should only charge overdraft or NSF fees when the transaction exceeded the actual amount of money in the customer's account and only charge fees per item and not per each presentment of an item. These practices were deceptive and caused harm to the Plaintiff and Class members as the fees charged on their accounts should not have been imposed. Glens Falls National Bank is a financial services institution with principal place of business in Glen Falls, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Cherundolo, Esq. J. Patrick Lannon, Esq. CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC AXA Tower I, 17th Floor 100 Madison Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 449-9500 Facsimile: (315) 449-9804 E-mail: plannon@cherundololawfirm.com jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com - and – Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com - and – Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com GLOBAL CONCESSIONS: Flores Suit Seeks Payment Over Tip Skimming --------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO FLORES and JASON HODGES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL CONCESSIONS, INC., GATEWAY AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC., AIRPORT CONCESSIONS GROUP, INC. d/b/a MIAMI GLOBAL JOINT VENTURES and FELIPE VALLS, JR., individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-22607-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), seeks to recover compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs contend that they were non-exempt employees hired by the Defendants on an hourly basis, but the Defendants willfully refused to properly tip-credit them, and all others similarly situated, as required under Federal law. Plaintiff Eduardo Flores, was working 40 hours per week, with an hourly pay rate of $5.60 per hour, but based upon calculations, was shorted weekly on his tip sharing amount by $115 to $135 from 2017 and ongoing. Plaintiff Jason Hodges was working 40 hours per week, with a pay rate of $6.25 per hour, but based upon calculations, was shorted weekly on his tip sharing amount by $115 to $135 from 2017 up to his termination on November 10, 2019. Global Concessions is a retail company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad Levy, Esq. David M. Cozad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com assistant@levylevylaw.com david@levylevylaw.com GLOBAL SPEC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vanaken Claims -------------------------------------------------- The case, JAMES VANAKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL SPEC SECURITY GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JOSEPH JOHNSON, individually, and YUSUF JOHNSON, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01490-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Security Officer at 3750 Gunn Hwy, Tampa, FL 33618. Plaintiff claims that he worked 55 hours or more in a work week during his employment with Defendants. However, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the required overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. Joseph Johnson and Yusuf Johnson own and operate Global Spec Security Group, LLC. Global Spec Security Group, LLC is a security company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brianna A. Jordan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin St., Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813-393-5457 Email: bjordan@forthepeople.com GRUBHUB INC: Eliades et al. Allege Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------- The case, PHILIP ELIADES, JONATHAN SWABY, JOHN BOISI, and NATHAN OBEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRUBHUB INC.; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and POSTMATES INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05134 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an anticompetitive scheme in the restaurant platform, takeout and delivery, and sit-down markets by forcing restaurants to enter into agreements that contain most-favored nation provisions (MFNs). The Defendants' MFNs have reduced price competition in these markets by prohibiting restaurants from offering lower prices to consumers who order directly from restaurants and by prohibiting restaurants from offering lower prices through competing restaurant platforms. This market power possessed by the Defendants allow them to profitably impose supracompetitive pricing on both restaurants and consumers in the takeout and delivery market and the sit-down market in both national and local geographic markets. Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery marketplace that connects diners with local takeout restaurants, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Uber Technologies, Inc. is an American multinational ride-hailing company with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Postmates Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals and other goods, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle W. Roche, Esq. Edward Normand, Esq. Stephen Lagos, Esq. ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10016 E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com tnormand@rcfllp.com slagos@rcfllp.com GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRYON LEFORT, individually and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action under section 216(b) against the Gulfport Energy on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated; b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to the following class: "all Ohio current and former oilfield workers employed by Defendant who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate instead of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek during the three years preceding the date of the filing of this motion to the present"; c. approving the proposed Notice of FLSA lawsuit informing such present and former employees of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them to opt into the case by signing and submitting the proposed Consent to Join Form; d. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days of an order granting conditional certification a Roster of such present and former employees that includes their full names, their dates of employment, their locations worked, their last known home addresses, and personal email addresses; e. directing that the Notice and Consent, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former employees within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the home and email addresses; and f. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees. According to the Plaintiff's complaint, the Defendant misclassified its oilfield workers, including its lease operators and well tenders, as independent contractors to avoid paying them overtime wages required under the FLSA. The Defendant maintained a uniform pay practice of paying these lease operators a day rate without overtime compensation.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Leal Insurance Suit in Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leal, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. d/b/a The Hartford, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00917 (D. Conn., July 2, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Kindall, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 Email: mkindall@ikrlaw.com HIGH RIVER LTD: Franchi Submitted Verification in Breach Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as ADAM FRANCHI and DAVID PILL, On Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated v. JAFFREY A. FIRESTONE, KEVIN LEWIS, PETER K. SHEA, SACHIN LATAWA, CARL C. ICAHN, HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, KOALA HOLDING LP, STARFIRE HOLDING CORPORATION, and VOLTARI MERGER SUB LLC, Case No. 2020-0503 (Del. Ch.), Adam Franchi submitted unsworn verification pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection with the filing of a verified class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Franchi said, "I held shares of Voltari Corporation common stock continuously throughout the wrongs alleged in the Complaint. I have authorized the filing of the Complaint against the defendants in this action. I verify that I have reviewed the foregoing Complaint and that the allegations as to me and my own actions are true and correct and all other allegations upon information and belief are true and correct." High River operates as a venture capital firm.[BN] HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Discrimination Suit Moved to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ZELIA BROWN AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DR. CESAR MALDONADO, JANET MAY AND DR. ADRIANA TAMEZ (Filed June 22, 2020), was removed from the Texas District Court, Harris County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on June 19, 2020. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-02186 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants discriminated against her because she is African-American, and because she is female, and that the Defendants retaliated against her for allegedly reporting wrongdoing within the College. She asserts claims for race and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. HCC formerly employed Plaintiff Zelia Brown as a manager until she voluntarily resigned from the College in March 2020. Just prior to her resignation, the College had investigated concerns raised by employees that the Plaintiff's mistreatment toward them was inappropriate and that she had created a work environment of fear and intimidation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Hall, III, Esq. William L. Van Fleet, II, Esq. 530 Lovett Blvd. Houston, TX 77006 E-mail: bhall@bhalllawfirm.com bvfleet@comcast.net The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Lamp, Esq. C. Cory Rush, Esq. KARCZEWSKI BRADSHAW SPALDING 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 560 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: 713 993-7060 Facsimile: 888 726-8374 E-mail: plamp@kbslawgroup.com crush@kbslawgroup.com HUGHES CITY, AR: Court Wants Narrower Class ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT SMART, TERRY ROSS RIGGS, and JOHNATHAN JACKSON, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CITY OF HUGHES, ARKANSAS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark., Filed April 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order: 1. denying, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice, and for disclosure of contact information. 2. directing the Plaintiffs to file a motion for conditional certification of a narrower class within 30 days from the entry of this Order; 3. directing the parties to confer and file a joint proposed amended scheduling order; and 4. directing the parties to request that the Court not enter an amended final scheduling order until after it has ruled on any such request, if plaintiffs renew their request for conditional certification. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs can meet their lenient burden at the notice stage of conditional certification by "establishing a colorable basis for their claim that the putative class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan." The Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence that they were subject to a common employment policy or plan. Accordingly, the Court declines to certify conditionally a collective action." The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.[CC] ICON PLC: Miller Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRYSTAL L. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ICON PLC, LYNDA HOLCROFT, DOCS GLOBAL, INC., ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 20-CIV-01732 (Filed April 20, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 22, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-04117-KAW to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims against the Defendants under California law for failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay all final wages. The Plaintiff alleges that Icon's Clinical Research Associates in all positions were not compensated at a rate no less than one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek, and were improperly classified as salaried employees, exempt from overtime pay. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, Icon's Clinical Research Associates in all positions are not properly exempt from overtime pay under any exemption. Icon is a global provider of outsourced development and commercialization services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industries.[BN] Defendant Icon is represented by: Christopher J. Banks, Esq. Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650 843 4000 Facsimile: 650 843 4001 E-mail: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com IFFAH INVESTMENTS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- The case, BILAL AHMAD GHAURI, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IFFAH INVESTMENTS, INC., PINEHURST, INC., BAYTOWN BEST LIQUOR, INC., HIGHWAY 146 PROPERTIES INC., SHAKIL AMIR DHUKKA, SALIM A. DHUKKA SADIQUE ALI KHOJA, SYEED SADRUDDIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02331 (S.D. Tex., July 1, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him and all others similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime compensation at the required premium overtime pay rate at one-and-one-half times of their base hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in one or more workweek because Defendants applied a wide-spread policy and practice of paying their employees' wages by cash only at their straight-time hourly rates which allowed Defendants not to pay their overtime hours. Shakil Amir Dhukka, Salim A. Dhukka Sadique Ali Khoja, and Syeed Sadruddin jointly own and operate the named legal entity Defendants. Iffah Invvestments, Inc., Pinehurst, Inc., Baytown Best Liquor, Inc., and Highway 146 Properties Inc. operates gasoline stations and convenience stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Syed N. Izfar, Esq. 11111 Katy Freeway, #1010 Houston, TX 77079 Tel: (713) 467-0786 Fax: (713) 467-2424 Email: syedizfar@sbcglobal.net IGNITE INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IGNITE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-01172 (D. Nev., June 23, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Ignite International, Ltd. operates as a vertically-integrated cannabis company. The Company engage, in the business of cultivation, development, extraction, and distribution of cannabis and cannabis-infused products, as well as the production and distribution of cannabis-related accessories. Ignite International serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Rd., Ste 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Unit Sues Over Delays in Generic Drug ---------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; and WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03852 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and state unfair trade practices laws in the United States. The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that Defendants Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Roxane Labs engaged in an unlawful scheme to delay the entry of generic competition in the market for Jazz's medication Xyrem, a sodium oxybate oral solution. On April 5, 2017, Jazz and Roxane entered into a pay-for-delay agreement in order to: (a) delay generic entry of Xyrem in order to lengthen the period in which Jazz's brand Xyrem could monopolize the market and make supra-competitive profits; (b) keep an authorized generic off the market during Roxane's 180-day generic exclusivity period, thereby allowing Roxane to monopolize the generic market for Xyrem during that period and allowing Roxane to make supra-competitive profits; (c) allocate 100% of U.S. generic Xyrem sales to Roxane during the first 180 days of generic sales; and (d) raise and maintain the prices that the Plaintiff and Class members would pay for Xyrem at supra-competitive levels until at least July 2023. In addition, Jazz engaged in deceptive conduct by: (1) improperly listing the Xyrem Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Patents in a publication called the "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," which is more commonly referred to as the Orange Book, despite the fact that none claimed a drug product or method of using a drug as required by regulation; (2) withholding material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the prosecution of certain patents purportedly covering Xyrem, causing the PTO to improperly issue those patents; and (3) asserting those improperly obtained patents against would-be generic rivals in multiple patent infringement suits. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund (Local 1500) is an employee welfare benefits fund with its principal place of business at 425 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, New York. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer with its principal place of business at 2001 Arlington Lane, Columbus, Ohio. Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Freed, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Brian Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Rd, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com - and – Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Veronica Bosco, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROWLLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com vbosco@labaton.com - and – Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Mary L. Russell, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com mrussell@finekaplan.com JEFFERSON, NY: Court Denies Nourse's Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRAD NOURSE, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Case No. 1:17-cv-00807-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff proposed a class consisting of: "all persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Jefferson County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and being eligible for bail, and were or will be immediately strip searched upon their entry into the Jefferson County Jail and who posted bail within four hours of their entry into the facility." The Court said, "In view of the individualized liability issues regarding the circumstances of potential class members' strip searches and the lack of evidence showing that common questions of law and fact predominate over "questions affecting only individual members," the Plaintiff has failed to meet the predominance requirement. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rules 23(a) and 23(b), his motion for class certification is denied." The Plaintiff brought this action alleging that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated when he was strip searched during intake processing at the Jefferson County Jail without being provided reasonable time to post bail.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. Maria K. Dyson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 The Defendant is represented by: Teresa M. Bennett, Esq. Anneliese Aliasso, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 125 East Jefferson Street Syracuse, NY 13202 JOHN M. LEUTHARDT: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GONZALEZ, JOSE SARAVIA, JUAN GONZALEZ, JUAN HIGINIO RAMIREZ and SANTOS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- JOHN M. LEUTHARDT LANDSCAPING, INC. and JOHN LEUTHARDT, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02902 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) arises from the failure of the Defendants to pay Plaintiffs time and a half of his regular hourly wage for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs were or are employed by Defendants as landscapers, snow removers and nursery workers. Due to Defendants' FLSA and NYLL violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, their unpaid overtime wages and an amount equal to their unpaid overtime wages in the form of liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest in accordance with federal and state laws. Further, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written notice, in English and in Spanish (Plaintiffs' primary language), of their rate of pay, regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiffs with wage statements upon each payment of wages, as required by NYLL. John M. Leuthardt Landscaping, Inc. is a New York-based landscape architecture services provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages For Flaggers ------------------------------------------------------------- LATISHA THOMAS, AIESHAI LONDON and JAY SIMMONS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against- JRCRUZ CORP., Defendant, Case No. 511297/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June 30, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits which she and the members of the putative Class were entitled to receive for work, including weekend, evening and holiday work, they performed pursuant to contracts entered into between Defendants and public entities, including, but not limited to, New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") and New York City Department of Design and Construction ("DDC") which required payment of prevailing wages. Plaintiffs are former construction flaggers who worked for Defendant on public projects on New York City roadways. Throughout their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were not paid the applicable prevailing rate of wages or supplemental benefits for all hours that they worked on water main, sewer and other public works projects on New York City roadways. Plaintiffs also bring claims for Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law. Jrcruz Corp. is a New Jersey-based heavy construction company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pclton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq. 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212)385-9700 Facsimile: (212)385-0800 JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moll Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks --------------------------------------------------- BRITTNAY MOLL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV367553 (Cal. Super., June 25, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Moll was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. Juniper Networks, Inc. provides internet infrastructure solutions for internet service providers and other telecommunications service providers. The Company offers network infrastructure solutions that includes IP routing, ethernet switching, security, and application acceleration. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Philip Song, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Graziano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNA GRAZIANO, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05049 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Store Manager of Human Resources and Operations (ASM HRO) for Defendants from approximately September 2007 to October 2015 at Kohl's store in Newburgh, New York. According to the complaint, Defendants classified all their ASMs, including Plaintiff, as exempt from overtime. Thus, Defendants compensate all ASMs a flat weekly salary without paying them for the hours they work over 40 in a week despite spending most of their time performing non-exempt duties. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl's Corporation own and operate retail department stores throughout New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Emails: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com - and – Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE 221 Main St., Suite 502 Hartford, CT Tel: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com KRAFT HEINZ: Falsely Labels Cheese Products as Natural, Koh Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYLVIA KOH and DAVID GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04425-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and State Consumer Protection Statutes. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers in the United States, allege that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive and false advertising and marketing of Kraft Natural Cheese products. The Defendant represents the products as naturally made but in reality, they were made with milk from cows who were given recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), an artificial hormone. The Defendant deceives the consumers, including the Plaintiffs, into thinking that the natural representations on the products' labels mean that they were made without the use of artificial hormone. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured because they purchased the products at premium price and received less than what they bargained and/or paid for. The Kraft Heinz Company is a manufacturer of food and beverage products that maintains its principal places of business in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jaimie Mak, Esq. Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW GROUP 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 Facsimile: (718) 228-8522 E-mail: jmak@richmanlawgroup.com krichman@richmanlawgroup.com LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Suit Moved From C.D. California to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GARY SOSENKO, DIANE TERRY, and MICHAEL BURRAGE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-00610 (Filed April 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 23, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.2:20-cv-07652 to the proceeding. The class action is brought on behalf of California consumers, who purchased refrigerators manufactured by LG that are equipped with linear compressors (LG Refrigerators). LG designed, manufactured, promoted, distributed, and sold the LG Refrigerators, pricing them in the range of $1,400 to $7,000. According to the complaint, a latent defect causes failure of the refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component responsible for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG Refrigerators unable to perform their most basic function: cooling and preserving food and beverages. When the compressor defect manifests, the refrigerator warms and its contents spoil, unless they are moved to a working refrigerator or cooler. Although refrigerators last 13 years on average, the LG Refrigerators have been failing en masse within 36 months, says the complaint. Mr. Sosenko purchased a Kenmore-branded LG Refrigerator (Model 4 795.7402.411) for approximately $2,600 on May 26, 2016, from a Sears store in Orange, California. Ms. Terry purchased an LG Refrigerator (Model LMXS30776S/03) for approximately $3,200 on June 28, 2016, from the Pacific Sales Kitchen & Home store in Corona, California. LG Electronics manufactures and distributes consumer electronic products. The Company offers light emission diode televisions, mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, and projectors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com - and - Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. BERGER AND MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net LISA'S ULTIMATE: Bennett Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHATON BENNETT v. LISA'S ULTIMATE WAX III LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and LISA SCHILLER, Case No. 9:20-cv-80988-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the pay practice on the part of the Defendants violated the FLSA as the Defendants failed to properly pay overtime to Ms. Bennett for those hours worked in excess of 40. Ms. Bennett was employed by Lisa's Ultimate and Ms. Schiller. Lisa's Ultimate offers hair removal and other related services. Ms. Schiller is the owner and sole managing member of Lisa's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Lustig, Esq. Robert C. Johnson, Esq. PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP 1209 N. Olive Ave. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 855-7585 Facsimile: (561) 855-7710 E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com M & L CLEANING: Jimenez FLSA Suit Granted Collective Status ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MANUEL JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. M & L CLEANING, INC. and JOHN MELIA, Case No. 3:19-cv-00078-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has made the requisite showing that he and other "similarly situated" cleaners were victims of the Defendants' common policy or plan and that the common policy or plan violated the FLSA. Jimenez asserts, through his affidavit and complaint, that he and his co-worker cleaners were regularly required to work more than forty hours per week without receiving any compensation for overtime. Specifically, their work schedule and duties were such that they were required to work from 7:40 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 7:40 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Friday. Jimenez estimates that the Defendants, who have a high turnover rate among their cleaners, employ approximately twenty-two cleaners at any given time, and he has identified seven such cleaners by name. Jimenez asserts that the named cleaners worked the same schedule and performed the same duties as him. To his knowledge, Jimenez asserts, none of these cleaners were compensated for the overtime work, as required by the FLSA. Further, Jimenez has identified by name two cleaners who complained to him about their work schedules and the fact that they were not being paid overtime. Although the statements of these other cleaners are, in some respects, hearsay, they are still probative evidence for purposes of the step one Myers analysis." Jimenez asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Actand the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Jimenez worked as a cleaner for M&L Cleaning between March of 2016 and October 13, 2018. Melia owns, operates, and manages M&L Cleaning. M&L Cleaning employs approximately 22 cleaners at any given time.[CC] MANAGED LABOR: Underpays Transporters & Drivers, Poliner Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN POLINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case no. 3:20-cv-00738 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Transporter at the Jacksonville International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida from on or about September 8, 2019 to on or about March 26, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly paid drivers and transporters routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. But, when Plaintiff reported his 83.66 hours that included overtime hours worked on the standard company provided timesheet during the period of December 23, 2019 to January 5, 2020, Defendant removed all the overtime hours and paid him only 75.75 hours worked straight time. The complaint asserts that Defendant fraudulently, unlawfully, and willfully edited employee time records, shaving, deleting and modifying hours worked to avoid paying overtime compensation owed to hourly paid employees. Managed Labor Solutions, LLC offers outsourced labor forces to small and large businesses, including car rental companies at airports and city based locations across the U.S.A. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6940 West Linebaugh Ave., Suite 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us lschindler@feldmanlegal.us MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Lo Alleges Illegal Recruitment of Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Robanne Lo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Management Health Systems, LLC d/b/a MedPro Staffing, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61319 (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking relief for Defendant's violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") According to the complaint, Defendant is a foreign labor recruiter who purports to recruit nurses from abroad to work in healthcare facilities throughout the United States. Defendant's operations and the circumstances surrounding the nurses' work for Defendant result in what is essentially indentured servitude. After getting nurses to sign a non-negotiable contract agreeing to work for Defendant, and after bringing them to the United States to work, Defendant informs nurses that they are subject to up to a $40,000 penalty if they leave before their three-year employment term is up. The complaint further states that Defendant threatens its nurses with legal action to keep them working for Defendant. Defendant seeks to continue to profit from the nurses' labor under Defendant's contracts with the various healthcare facilities at which the nurses work through this scheme. This lawsuit seeks to end Defendant's illegal practices and to compensate the victims of those practices. Plaintiff is a Registered Nurse employed by Defendant. He is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines and a legal permanent resident of the United States. He lives in Texas. Management Health Systems, LLC is one of the largest healthcare staffing firms in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Charles A. Delbridge, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com cdelbridge@nka.com MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a ANYTIME FITNESS - WEST POINT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03689 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2020) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim. As a result of the orders of the various civil authorities due to the outbreak of infections and deaths associated with COVID-19, the Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, significant and injurious losses and expenses directly related to the inability to use the physical locations covered by the Policy. Under the Plaintiff's Policy, Markel is obligated to provide coverage for, and to pay, business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of the Plaintiff's operations, including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities. Notice of loss was reported to Markel on April 18, 2020. In response, on April 23, 2020, Markel reneged on these obligations and wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of the Plaintiff's operations, including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities. It did so a mere four business days after the Plaintiff's notice of loss, showing Markel engaged in no meaningful investigation of the claims or review of the Policy. Markel's actions in improperly denying the Plaintiff's claim were a blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's contractual rights resulting in a material breach of Markel's duties and obligation owed under the Policy and deprived the Plaintiff of the benefit of its bargain, causing serious financial damages. Markel Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company underwrites property and casualty insurance. Markel Insurance serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 610-5350 - and - Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq. April S. Rogers, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 505 20th Street N, Suite 1450 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 453-6415 - and - Adam J. Gomez, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7 th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7100 - and - Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. One Market Street Spear Tower, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 789-4367 - and - L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq. ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A. 201 East Bankhead Street P.O. Box 1771 New Albany, MS 38652 Telephone: (662) 538-5990 - and - Winston B. Collier, Esq. THE COLLIER FIRM, P.A. P.O. Box 1702 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: 662-234-0320 MATHERSON ORGANICS: Schnurer Sues Over Toothpowders' Side Effects ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY SCHNURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATHERSON ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01223-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant made false and deceptive representations of the Active Wow '24K White' Activated Coconut Teeth Whitening Charcoal Powder - All Natural product. These misrepresentations include: (i) naturally whiten teeth and does so in a safe, healthy and/or gentle manner; (ii) are recognized as safe and effective for long-term daily use; (iii) are safe for enamel and gums; (iv) are third-party tested for enamel safety; (v) detoxify and purify; (vi) adsorb, draw, or lift stains off of teeth by operation of the adsorptive properties of charcoal; (vii) are excellent for gum health; (viii) fight cavities and tooth decay, by merit of the inclusion of xylitol; (ix) have re-mineralizing properties by merit of the inclusion of bentonite; (x) have anti-inflammatory and antiseptic properties, by merit of the inclusion of orange seed oil; and (xi) are generally beneficial to oral health and provide adequate dental hygiene for use as a replacement for toothpaste. Contrary to the representations, the product cannot deliver the promised health and cosmetic benefits and its use can potentially detrimental to oral health and aesthetics. As a direct result of this wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered ascertainable out-of-pocket losses from their purchases of one or more Charcoal Toothpowders. Furthermore, some consumers have experienced the negative effects that activated charcoal can cause, including discoloration of the gumline, gum irritation, excessive abrasion of tooth enamel and dentin, yellowing of the teeth, and damage to dental implants. Matherson Organics, LLC is a health and beauty products company with principal place of business at 75 North Woodward Avenue, #85899, Tallahassee, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.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 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and – William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com MDL 1720: R&M Objectors' Request for Attorneys' Fees Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margo Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order denying R7M Objectors' Motion for Attorneys' Fees in IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This document refers to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB) (JO), (E.D. N.Y.). On June 7, 2019, a group of objectors previously identified in this multi-district litigation (the "MDL") as Retailer and Merchant Objectors ("R&M Objectors") filed a motion to be compensated for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards for their role in objecting to the previously approved settlement agreement (the "2013 Settlement Agreement") that was later set aside by the Second Circuit. The R&M Objectors consist of restaurants, clothing stores, gas stations, and all manner of small to mid-sized businesses located in thirteen different states. In July 2019, the Court referred R&M Objectors' motion to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation. By report and recommendation dated October 11, 2019 (the "R&R"), Judge Orenstein recommended that the Court deny the motion. R&M Objectors timely objected to the R&R, and Plaintiffs responded to the objections. By December 2019, the Court granted final approval of a class settlement agreement in the case. The Court also granted attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' class counsel but adopted the R&R and denied attorneys' fees and expenses for the R&M Objectors. The Court explains its reasons for adopting the R&R in its entirety and denying R&M Objectors' motion in a Memorandum and Order, a copy of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/t72kx5f from Leagle.com. After reviewing R&M Objectors' arguments, both in the district court and on appeal, the Court is not persuaded that R&M Objectors were a substantial cause of the Second Circuit's decision to set aside the 2013 Settlement Agreement. While R&M Objectors objected early and consistently, their initial objections did not raise any concerns about the adequacy of class counsel's inherently conflicted representation or the problems with the surcharge benefit, the Court notes. R&M Objectors did eventually make the argument, starting at the preliminary approval stage, that the surcharge provision of the injunctive relief would not benefit all class members -- an argument that the Second Circuit ultimately found persuasive. However, they were not the first to make this argument, and, in later rounds of briefing, largely echoed the more comprehensive arguments of other parties' briefs, in which R&M Objectors joined, the Court points out. Given the extensive objections to the settlement, the Court is not convinced that, in the absence of R&M Objectors, the outcome on appeal would have been any different. But even assuming that were the case, the Court would still not be able to find that R&M Objectors had substantially caused any increased value of the Superseding Settlement Agreement, which the Court instead attributes to the years of additional discovery and renegotiation that followed the Second Circuit's decision, and which R&M Objectors had no involvement in. Accordingly, the Court denies R&M Objectors' request for attorneys' fees. Moreover, the Court finds that R&M Objectors have not established any circumstances to warrant a service award. Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum , Nussbaum Law Group, PC, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Alexandra S. Bernay - XanB@lerachlaw.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin R. Nagin - BNAGIN@SIDLEY.COM - Sidley Austin LLP, Carmen A. Medici -cmedici@rgrdlaw.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, D. Cameron Baker , Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, David W. Mitchell - davidm@rgrdlaw.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis Stewart - dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric P. Barstad , Robins Kaplan LLP, 800 Lasalle Ave Ste 2800 Minneapolis, MN, 55402-2039 Eastern Watch Co., Robert Gardner, Karla F. Solis, D.D.S., Inc. d/b/a LA Holistic Dentistry & The Perfect Sidekick, LLC, Movants, represented by David S. Preminger -dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback LLP. Aldi Inc., Movant, represented by Jerome F. Buch - jbuch@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP & John Robert Schleppenbach, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000, Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448 Defendants in civil action Jetro Holding, Inc. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al, Defendant, represented by Mark E. Tully - mtully@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, LLP, Peter Edward Greene -peter.greene@skadden.com - Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, William Harry Rooney - wrooney@willkie.com - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Andrew J. McDonald , Pullman & Comley, LLC, 850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601, Brian A. Herman - brian.herman@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP, David Sapir Lesser -DAVID.LESSER@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Douglas Melamed , Eric H. Grush - egrush@sidley.com - Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Fenby , Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr. - gcarney@paulweiss.com - Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY HAMM and BRYCE MEEKER, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order on July 6, 2020, granting a stipulation to reschedule the class certification briefing and hearing schedule. The Stipulation provides that: -- The deadline for MBUSA to file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for MBUSA's class certification experts shall be November 5, 2020. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file any reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be November 20, 2020. -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any Daubert motions shall be December 17, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. or the first available Court hearing date thereafter. For administrative purposes only, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, is terminated. The Plaintiff shall file a new notice of motion (without the memorandum and supporting materials) setting the motion for class certification for hearing on December 17, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.[CC] The Plaintiff Terry Hamm is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Rd, Suite 200-D Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Troy M. Yoshino, Esq. Eric J. Knapp, Esq. Scott J. Carr, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: +1 415 954 0200 Facsimile: +1 415 393 9887 E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com eric.knapp@squirepb.com scott.carr@squirepb.com MI BARRIO MEAT: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Butchers ------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS MIRANDA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- MI BARRIO MEAT MARKET INC. (D/B/A MI BARRIO MEAT MARKET INC.), GEORGE PORTOREAL, NEW PUBLIC MEAT MARKET INC (D/B/A NEW PUBLIC MEAT MARKET), MARIA PEREZ, FRANCISCO ZUNIGA, and ROBERTO PAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04983 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Miranda and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff was employed as a butcher by Defendants at Mi Barrio Meat Market and New Public Market from approximately 2008 until on or about June 8, 2020. Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc., (d/b/a Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc.), and New Public Meat Market Inc., (d/b/a New Public Meat Market), own, operate, or control two meat market companies in New York under the name "Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc." and "New Public Meat Market."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fallace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Schnapf FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cynthia Schnapf, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00151-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MIKE & CATHY'S: Merino et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCISCO MERINO and LEONEL AMIGON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -againstMIKE & CATHY'S SONS, INC. d/b/a MIKE'S HINSCH'S, MGD STEWARTS ONE INC. d/b/a STEWART'S RESTAURANT BAY RIDGE BROOKLYN, MICHAEL MOUDATSOS, ELIAS MOUDATSOS, and MATTEO GUARINO, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02850 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover the unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL §§ 190 et seq. and the supporting regulations. Plaintiffs are former line cooks and dishwashers at Defendants' restaurant located in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, New York. For their work, throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiffs were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. In addition, for several years of the relevant time period, Plaintiff Merino was not paid the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked. Mike & Cathy's Sons, Inc. d/b/a "Mike's Hinsch's," and MGD Stewarts One Inc. d/b/a "Stewart's Restaurant Bay Ridge Brooklyn" are restaurant companies based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 MONSANTO CO: Baltimore County, City Lead Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Montcalmo, writing for NottinghamMD.com, reports the City of Baltimore and Baltimore County, along with eleven other governmental entities across the country, announced a proposed nationwide class action settlement with Monsanto Company, Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc., for $550 million, resolving PCB water contamination claims for a proposed class of 2,528 governmental entities nationwide. "This national resolution will empower nearly 2,000 cities, towns, counties, and independent port districts to better monitor, mitigate, and remediate these man-made carcinogens that impair the water quality in stormwater, sewer systems, sediments, and water bodies," Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young and Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski, Jr. said in a joint statement. "Our region is home to hundreds of miles of waterfront, including rivers, creeks, and critical estuaries like the Baltimore Harbor, which are a precious component of our culture. We're proud to lead efforts to protect these natural resources and to protect waters throughout the state and nation." Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, impair the water quality of Back River, Bear Creek, Curtis Creek and the Baltimore Harbor, which are important estuaries, as well as tidal portions of Bird River and Gunpowder River, and the Lake Roland impoundment. PCBs are man-made carcinogens that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate, resulting in fish consumption advisories in these water bodies. Cases Were Litigated for Over Five Years Legal motions to approve the proposed settlement class have been filed in federal court in the Central District of California, in a case before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. More than a dozen lawsuits have been filed by governmental entities since March 2015, seeking to recover the costs associated with cleaning up stormwater and environmental contamination caused by PCBs, which Monsanto manufactured between the 1930s and 1977. The City of Baltimore and Baltimore County were the first East Coast governments to sue. The named plaintiffs leading the nationwide resolution include the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, City of Spokane, City of Tacoma, City of Portland, Port of Portland, City of Berkeley, City of Oakland, City of San Jose, County of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista, California. The cases were collectively litigated for over five years and were mediated and resolved through JAMS Mediator Judge (Ret.) Jay Gandhi. The proposed class action must be approved by Judge Olguin prior to providing payments to the governmental entity class members. The proposed class action will provide all class members with a monetary benefit and will additionally provide funds for those governmental entities that have incurred or will incur significant expenses to protect and remediate America's waterways. The City of Baltimore is represented by Acting City Solicitor Dana P. Moore and Director of Affirmative Litigation Suzanne Sangree. Baltimore County is represented by County Attorney James R. Benjamin, Jr. and Deputy County Attorney Gregory E. Gaskins. The City of Baltimore and Baltimore County are also represented by outside counsel Martin Wolf, Richard Gordon and Ben Carney of Gordon, Wolf & Carney, as well as Kyle McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer, and John Fiske of Baron & Budd, P.C., one of the proposed Lead Class Counsel. [GN] MONSANTO CO: Long Beach, et al. Seek Approval of $550-Mil. Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision; CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal corporation; CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a port district of the State of Oregon; BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY; SOLUTIA INC., and PHARMACIA LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Settlement Class; 2. preliminary approving class action settlement; 3. approving notice plan; 4. appointing class action settlement administrator; and 5. appointing class counsel. Brandon Richardson, writing for Long Beach Business Journal, reports that 13 government entities, including the city of Long Beach, have filed a motion to approve a $550 million class action settlement with Monsanto Company, Parmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc., which would resolve five years of litigation in a water contamination case. “This settlement is a groundbreaking effort to protect and restore the city’s water resources,” Long Beach City Attorney Charles Parkin said in a statement. Since March 2015, lawsuits have been filed by over a dozen entities seeking cost recovery for stormwater and environmental contamination caused by polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB, which St. Louis-based Monsanto manufactured between the 1930s and 1977. The highly carcinogenic chemical was banned in the US by the Environmental Protection Agency. The class plaintiffs named in the nationwide resolution include the cities of Long Beach, Tacoma, Portland, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, Spokane, San Diego, Chula Vista and Baltimore, as well as the Port of Portland, Los Angeles County, and Baltimore County. The proposed class includes over 2,500 governmental entities. “This national resolution will provide Long Beach [...] with funds for monitoring, mitigation and remediation efforts to manage PCBs in stormwater, stormwater systems, sediments and water bodies,” Parkin said. Long Beach is a coastal city and port in Southern California. Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of the U.S. state of California, is the most populous county in the United States. Chula Vista is the second largest city in the San Diego metropolitan area, the seventh largest city in Southern California. The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018. [CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Summy, Esq. Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq. John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave, No. 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: SSummy@baronbudd.com cburkepickrel@baronbudd.com Fiske@baronbudd.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Causes Cancer, Diaz et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- DIONICIO O. DIAZ; and OGALIS R. DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-04757 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Roundup and glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Defendant's failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff resulted in (1) the Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead of using another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted weeds and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn and instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including mantle cell lymphoma (NHL), and other injuries associated with Roundup. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL D. RHEINGOLD PC 5 Manursing Way Rye, NY 01580 Telephone: (914) 967-2215 MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Roden Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- THE ESTATE OF PETER RODEN, by Executor, NATHAN RODEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case 3:20-cv-00857 (D. Conn., June 22, 2020) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff's decedent as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Roundup or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff's decedent was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and succumbed to the disease. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Ann Raymond, Esq. THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C. 160 Hempstead St New London, CT 06320 Telephone: (860) 442-0444 Facsimile: (860) 444-6445 E-mail: lraymond@reardonlaw.com MOOREGROUP CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Porter Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint has been filed in the case captioned JOSHUA PORTER et al, Plaintiff, v. MOOREGROUP CORPORATION; JOHN MOORE; GARY MOORE; MARTIN MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07405 (KAM)(VMS), (E.D. N.Y.). On December 20, 2017, plaintiffs Joshua Porter and Sharkey Simmons commenced the action against defendants MooreGroup Corporation; Martin Moore; John Moore; and Gary Moore, alleging various wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Sec. 650 et seq., and NYLL Sec. 190 et seq. Plaintiffs brought their FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of the defendants and their NYLL claims as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all fire guards, welders, and other construction employees working for the defendants in New York. In a Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx2ylno6 from Leagle.com, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, including Plaintiffs' requests: (i) to add Rivera as a named plaintiff, (ii) to add Baldwin as an additional defendant, and (iii) to add retaliation claims with respect to Rivera and Simmons. Joshua Porter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated & Sharkey Simmons, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Taylor B. Graham graham@peltonlaw.com, Pelton Graham LLC & Brent E. Pelton - pelton@peltonlaw.com - Pelton Graham LLC. Mooregroup Corporation, Jointly and Severally, John Moore, Jointly and Severally, Gary Moore, Jointly and Severally & Martin Moore, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, represented by Michael Taubenfeld , Fisher Taubenfeld LLP, 225 Broadway, Ste 1700, New York, New York 10007, Elbert Nasis - enasis@forchellilaw.com - Forchelli Deegan Terrana, LLP, Lisa M. Casa-lcasa@forchellilaw.com - Forchelli Curto Deegan Schwartz Mineo & Terrana, LLP & Michael Andrew Berger - mberger@forchellilaw.com - Forchelli Deegan Terrana LLP. MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Noble Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Noble, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Mt. Washington Pizzeria, Inc. d/b/a LaRosa's; Nicholas Fucito; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00489-MWM (S.D. Ohio, June 23, 2020), seeks relief based on the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act. The Plaintiff and the similarly situated persons are current and former delivery drivers at the Defendants' LaRosa's stores. Mt. Washington Pizzeria operates the Defendants' LaRosa's stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com NASH EXPRESS: Rodriguez Sues Over Bounced Check & Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOEL RODRIGUEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NASH EXPRESS CARGO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and KOMESHWAR RAMPERSAUD, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22687-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2020) alleges that three checks that were paid by Defendant to Plaintiff for the 72-hour work he performed during the last three weeks of employment with Defendant were returned, one was due to insufficient funds and the other two due to a stop payment being placed. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular rate and/or minimum wages when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt driver from on or about January 10, 2018 through on or about June 8, 2020. Komeshwar Rampersaud had operational control over the Defendant corporation and is directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and hours worked by employees. Nash Express Cargo, LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Miramar, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (954) 361-8383 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and – Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305) 773-6661 Email: mamane@gmail.com NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4302; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4303; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4305; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4306; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4307; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4315; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4149; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4150; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4152; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4156; and -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4181. Plaintiffs-Appellees Paula Murray, Mary Sampson, Ernest Brens, Rudy Almanzar, Leora Keith, Francisco Medina, Pearl Lewis, Nereida Valdes, Norma Lopez, Angela Diaz and Barbara Brutus are represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 22 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4095; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4097; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4098; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4106; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4109; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4112; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4113; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4115; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4116; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4117; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4120; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4121; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4124; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4125; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4126; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4127; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4129; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4131; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4132; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4133; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4134; and -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4137. Plaintiffs-Appellees Lavoizier Saint Jean, Belkis Mejia, Veronica Davis, Rose Amaobi, Julio Delancer, Don Marbury, Velkis Estrella, Tracey Phillips, Gloria Jackson, Carrie Stevens, Susana Jimenez, Rosa Marcano, Maria Merino, Myriam Caicedo, Manuela Imbert, Marie Bernard-Campbell, Joan Hanerfeld, Nayda Solivan, Patricia Gibson, Ana Maria Vazquez, Olga Hooker and Evelyn Cole are represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 3 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4183; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4185; and -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4195. Plaintiffs-Appellees Gianlida Abreu, Rafael Valenzuela and Mercedes Casado are represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Claude S. Platton, Esq. ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 E-mail: cplatton@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Farmingdale Gym Owner Plans to File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Fanni Frankl, writing for Long Island Press, reports that a Farmingdale gym owner plans to file what he expects will be a class-action lawsuit to force New York State to allow gyms statewide to reopen from the coronavirus shutdown. Gov. Andrew Cuomo bumped gyms from phase four--which Long Island is expected to enter on July 8--after gyms were deemed unsafe to reopen due to fears that the air conditioning systems might recirculate the virus and infect others. But SC Fit owner Charles Cassara, who is filing the lawsuit, argues he is being denied the same rights of other business owners that have been allowed to reopen. He argues that social distancing measures can also be applied to gyms just like retailers and restaurants. "I am very happy that the economy is opening back up and am not upset, but I want my opportunity to open up my business," Cassara said. "You cannot close an entire industry with no data." The White House has said gyms can reopen "if they adhere to strict physical distancing and sanitation protocols" and preparedness measures that "state and local officials may need to tailor the application of these criteria to local circumstances." Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Georgia have reopened gyms with added precautions. All but Georgia are now considered coronavirus hot-spot states. "Logic suggests if you see a problem in other states that you explore it before you move forward in your state, and that's what we're doing with gyms, theaters, and malls," the governor told reporters on June 26. "Our Department of Health is trying to determine if there is any filtration system for an air conditioning system that can successfully remove the virus from air circulation." Cassara and his Syosset-based attorney, James Mermigis, are currently recruiting up to 2,000 gym owners statewide from Montauk to Buffalo to join the lawsuit. "We plan to file this case under the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution," Mermigis said. "We intend to file civil action and file an injunction for an emergency hearing from the judge." Nassau County Executive Laura Curran backed Cuomo's assertion that opening gyms may be too risky. "There are many other options for working out other than gyms," she said, adding that the "benefits of exercise at a gym do not outweigh the risks of the virus." [GN] NY EDUC DEPT: Court Certifies Class in J.S.M. "Due Process" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as J.S.M., by her parent, E.M., et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; RICHARD A. CARRANZA, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; and SHANNON TAHOE, as New York State Interim Commissioner of Education, Case No. 20-cv-705-EK-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "individuals who file or have filed due process complaints, and the children on whose behalf due process complaints are filed, when the due process complaints are unresolved and the decisions on such complaints have not been timely provided under applicable federal and New York State law"; 2. appointing the New York Legal Assistance Group and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and 3. directing appropriate notice to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The proposed class meets the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Komitee says. The Plaintiffs alleges that thousands of New York City children with disabilities or children suspected of being children with disabilities are being denied the free appropriate public education to which they are entitled under federal and state law due to pervasive delays in receiving hearings and decisions on "impartial due process" complaints challenging the adequacy and appropriateness of the special education services offered to them. The Plaintiffs include E.M., individually and on behalf of J.S.M.; B.M., by his parents, M.C. and L.M.; M.C. and L.M., individually and on behalf of B.M.; C.G., by his parent, L.G.; L.G., individually and on behalf of C.G.; P.W., by his parents, T.F. and P.R.W.; T.F. and P.R.W., individually and on behalf of P.W.; Q.T., by his parents, W.J.T. and W.H.T.; W.J.T. and W.H.T., individually and on behalf of Q.T.; A.N., by her parent, T.N.; T.N., individually and on behalf of A.N.; A.S., by his parent, T.T.; T.T., individually and on behalf of A.S.; K.M.E., by her parent, E.N.; E.N., individually and on behalf of K.M.E.; S.F., by her parent, A.F.; A.F., individually and on behalf of S.F.; S.S., by her parent, D.C.; D.C., individually and on behalf of S.S.; and W.W., by her parent, S.J.; S.J., individually and on behalf of W.W.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle F. Tarantolo, Esq. Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq Laura Davis, Esq. Sandra Robinson, Esq Phyllis Brochstein, Esq NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square New York, NY 10004-4027 Telephone: (212) 613-6551 E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org - and - William B. Monahan, Esq. Jessica M. Klein, Esq. Michael L. Akavan, Esq. Catherine E. Akenhead, Esq. Tasha N. Thompson, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: kleinj@sullcrom.com akavanm@sullcrom.com The Defendant is represented by: Elyce Matthews, Esq. Alissa Wright, Esq. Thomas Crane, Esq. Janice Birnbaum, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-8910 E-mail: elyce.matthews@ag.ny.gov tcrane@law.nyc.gov jbirnbau@law.nyc.gov OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company continues to defend putative class action suits related to its acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 ("City of Sterling"), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), based on alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the registration statement of which this prospectus supplement forms a part, made in connection with the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) Acquisition and Occidental's related issuance of common stock and debt securities offerings that took place in 2019. The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt securities offerings, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. Since the filing of the City of Sterling complaint, two additional putative class actions have been filed in the same court (together with City of Sterling, the "State Cases"). Occidental Petroleum said, "We and our officers and directors intend to defend ourselves vigorously in all respects in regard to the State Cases, which the parties are seeking to consolidate. Under certain circumstances, we may be obligated to indemnify some or all of the defendants in the State Cases, which include certain of the underwriters. Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we are currently unable to reasonably estimate our costs or any potential liability related to the State Cases." Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and production. OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY FRANKLIN v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston denied, without prejudice to refiling, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court says, "The case is stayed pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Smith. v. LoanMe, Inc., Case No. 2020-WL-1608928. The Defendant shall file a status report on September 18, 2020, and every 90 days thereafter, on the status of the state court proceedings. The Defendant shall file a notice to the Court within seven days of the California Supreme Court's resolution of Smith. After the seven-day period, the stay will be lifted and proceedings will resume in this Court." The Plaintiff brought suit against Ocwen Loan for the alleged violation of California Penal Code section 632.7. This case involves "numerous phone calls" that the Defendant, which was servicing the plaintiff's home mortgage, placed to the plaintiff between 2011 and 2015.[CC] PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-01586-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all individuals, and their reproductive partners, whose eggs or embryos were in Tank 4 at Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California on March 4, 2018"; and 2. dismissing as moot Defendant Chart Industries, Inc.'s motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' biostatistician expert Richard Jewell and a portion of the opinion of the Plaintiffs' embryologist expert Christine Allen. The Court rules that, given the privacy implications of the claims, many absent class members would prefer to wait until the first trial to decide whether to subject themselves to the invasion of their privacy that coming forward would require. The Court also holds that after a first trial these absent class members may be able to resolve their claims against Chart without ever having to sit for deposition. But that same result can be obtained even if the first trial is a bellwether trial rather than a trial of certified issues. Nonetheless, given the lack of judicial economy and efficiency gained by certifying the general causation issues, as well as the serious question as to whether issue class certification is a superior procedure, the Court in its discretion denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 4, 2018, Pacific Fertility laboratory director Dr. Joseph Conaghan observed liquid on the floor directly beneath one of the clinic's storage tanks: Tank 4. After removing the lid of the tank, the laboratory staff observed that the metal around the neck of tank was "broken and twisted and distorted." Staff also discovered that the "liquid nitrogen level in the tank was very low." Staff members added liquid nitrogen to Tank 4 and moved the eggs and embryos inside it to a back-up tank. Pacific Fertility provides fertility services including egg and embryo cryopreservation.[CC] PARAGON COIN: Court Certifies Federal Claims Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ASTLEY DAVY, et al. v. PARAGON COIN, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00671-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order: 1. granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certifying a class on the federal claims; and 2. directing the Plaintiffs to submit a notice plan to the Court by no later than July 22, 2020. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs clarified they are seeking to certify a nationwide class on their state law claims and have responded to the Court's request to address whether they had met their burden to show a nationwide class would be proper. The Court concludes they have not met that burden. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not ask the Court to certify a California subclass as alternative relief. Accordingly, the Court denies in part, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denies the motion to certify the state law claims. However, based on a filing submitted by the Defendants early on in this litigation, there may be at least 8,000 class members, and that number is reinforced by information contained in the SEC Paragon Order. The Court concludes the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show the class is sufficiently numerous on the federal claims. The suit arose from Plaintiffs' purchase of "PRG Tokens" issued as part of Paragon's initial coin offering. The Plaintiffs contend the PRG Tokens are unregistered securities in violatio of the Securities Act of 1993.[CC] PAUL F. VANEK: Polch Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE POLCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAUL F. VANEK, JR., M.D., INC. d/b/a Mentor Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, and PAUL F. VANEK JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01436 (N.D. Ohio, June 29, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act. Plaintiff began working for Defendants in or around November 2018 through a staffing agency, Empro Job Network, Inc. Plaintiff claims that she was properly paid overtime pursuant to the FLSA while she was working for Defendants through Empro. But, when she was hired by Defendants on a permanent basis from Empro in or around January 2019, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime for the work she performed in excess of 40 hours per week. Allegedly, Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiff's overtime hours and banked them for use as Paid Time Off, comp time, and/or vacation time. Paul F. Vanek, Jr. is the owner and principal of Mentor Plastic Surgery, controlled its employment and day to day operations, including its compensation policies and practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 2500 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Tel: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Paugstat Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL PAUGSTAT 6027 Ricky Dr. Fairfield, OH 45014 On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED c/o Ohio Statutory Agent CT Corporation System 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus, OH 43219 Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00508-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 1, 2020) alleges that Defendant knowingly, willfully, and deliberately fails to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime compensation of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as Defendant classifies its Sales Development Associates as so-called "independent contractors" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the Constitution and statutes of the State of Ohio. Defendant Pepperidge Farm failed to make, keep and preserve complete and accurate records of Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class sufficient to determine their lawful wages, actual hours worked, and other conditions of employment as required by the FLSA and Ohio law. Defendant failed to keep accurate records of hours worked. Thus, Defendant did not record or pay all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from approximately March 2007 to the present as a Sales Development Associate. Pepperidge Farm manufactures, markets, and distributes bakery and biscuit products, including cookies and crackers, across the United States, including in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com PFIZER INC: Faces Hays Suit in Colorado Alleging Personal Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shawn Carstensen Hays, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01948 (D. Colo., July 2, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City. Pfizer is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Lipman, Esq. PARKER LIPMAN, LLP 3200 Cherry Creek South Drive, Suite 520 Denver, CO 80209 Phone: (720) 638-9424 Fax: (720) 638-9423 Email: dan@parkerlipman.com PHH MORTGAGE: Torres Balks at Bankruptcy Plan Objections, Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE CARMEN TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, & SCHNEID, P.L.; ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID & CRANE LLC; RAS CRANE, LLC; RAS BORISKIN, LLC; and RAS CITRON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04370 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and violation of California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to carry out fraudulent business practices, which include: (1) filing and prosecuting non-meritorious Objections to Confirmation to plans of reorganization in cases commenced under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to churn fees and then add those attorney's fee to Class Members' loan balance; (2) failing to file notices required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1(c) in cases commenced under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code for post-petition fees, expenses, and charges and then adding those amounts to Class Members' loan balance; (3) failing to obtain a Certificate of Registration from the State Bar California pursuant to the California Professional Corporation Act to practice law as a law corporation in the State of California and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; (4) authorizing and allowing attorneys not licensed to practice law in California to file pleadings in each District of California for the United States Bankruptcy Court; (5) filing false and misleading pleadings in each District of California for the United States Bankruptcy Court regarding the corporate structure and employment of attorneys; (6) sharing fees generated from the practice of law in California with non-attorneys and entities owned and/or controlled by non-attorneys; and (7) sharing fees generated from the practice of law in California with other law firms with the informed written consent of their clients. The Plaintiff brings this cause of action to seek equitable and statutory relief to stop the Defendants' misconduct and to seek restitution of the amount the Defendants acquired through the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. PHH Mortgage Corporation is a provider of mortgage financing solutions with its principal place of business located at 1 Mortgage Way, Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation that offers consumer home, reverse mortgage, and investment property loans, with its principal place of business located at 1661 Worthington Avenue, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida. Robertson, Anschutz, & Schneid, P.L. is a law firm with its principal place of business was located at 6409 Congress Avenue, Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid & Crane LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business was located at 6409 Congress Avenue, Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida. RAS Crane, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business located at 10700 Abbott's Bridge Road, Suite 170, Duluth, Georgia. RAS Boriskin, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business was located at 900 Merchants Concourse LL-13, Westbury, New York. RAS Citron, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business was located at 130 Clinton Road, Suite 202, Fairfield, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Callahan, Esq. Edward Susolik. Esq. Brett E. Bitzer, Esq. CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 Telephone: (714) 241-4444 Facsimile: (714) 241-4445 E-mail: bbitzer@callahan-law.com - and – Brent D. Meyer, Esq. MEYER LAW GROUP LLP 268 Bush Street #3639 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-1588 Facsimile: (415) 762-5277 E-mail: brent@meyerllp.com PLAYAGS INC: Chowdhury Sues over 17% Drop in Share -------------------------------------------------- MANJAN CHOWDHURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYAGS, INC.; DAVID LOPEZ; and KIMO AKIONA, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-01209 (D. Nev., June 25, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment to goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the Company's iGaming reporting unit, due to extended regulatory timelines which delayed revenues. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.99, or nearly 52%, to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in Oklahoma; (2) that, as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be negatively impacted; (3) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its Interactive business segment, including delays in securing regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a goodwill impairment; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. PlayAGS, Inc. manufactures and supplies electronic gaming products. The Company focuses on providing slot and video bingo machines, table games, and casino equipment for players and operators. PlayAGS serves gaming market worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 330-4505 Facsimile: (702) 825-0141 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com PNC BANK: Class Limited to Loan Officers Employed Thru June 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TANSEER KAZI, et al. v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.,), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order: 1. granting PNC's motion to limit the class to mortgage loan officers employed through June 30, 2019, because PNC changed its compensation plan at that time and instituted an arbitration agreement for MLOs hired after that date, 2. denying Plaintiff Scheid's motion to expand the claims covered by the class definition to include failure to compensate training sessions in addition to rest breaks. The Court said, "The scope of class certification is modified to include claims based on PNC's alleged failure to pay for rest breaks from June 28, 2014 through June 29, 2019, and claims of derivative of such a theory, with a class defined as all individuals who were employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers during that time." The Court previously granted, in part, a motion to certify a class of current or former MLOs represented by the Plaintiff Linda Scheid asserting claims based on the purported failure of PNC Bank Ato compensate rest breaks as required by California law. PNC Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[CC] PRO ACTIVE SAFETY: Misclassifies HSE Specialists, Clayton Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRO ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS P.A.S.S. LLC d/b/a H.S.E. SAFETY PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00161 (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an HSE Specialist from approximately December 2018 until February 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked 72 hours each workweek. But, because Defendant allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA, Defendant failed to pay them one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Pro Active Safety Systems P.A.S.S. LLC d/b/a H.S.E. Safety Partners employs and staffs certified safety professionals into large industrial and commercial construction or maintenance jobs all across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PROGRESSIVE SELECT: South Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM SOUTH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21760-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the "Class" or "Class Members" defined as: "all individuals who: (a) on or after September 18, 2013; (b) are or were covered by a Progressive Select Insurance Company ("Progressive") Florida personal automobile insurance policy; (c) made a claim under the Collision or Comprehensive coverages of that policy for damage or loss to a covered vehicle which Progressive accepted and treated as a total loss claim; and (d) Progressive paid the claim on a cash settlement basis with the actual cash value derived from the Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss system. The class period will be from September 18, 2013, to the date of class certification.; 2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g); and 3. appointing himself as Class Representative. The Plaintiff contends that Progressive uniformly did not pay title/license and dealer fees to the Class, which violated Fla. Stat. section 626.9743(5) and breached the Policy on its face and as conformed to the Policy. Mr. South is a Class Member, has suffered the same injury as the other Class Members, and his claims rest on the same legal theories for declaratory interpretation and breach of the Policy. He was insured under Progressive's Policy and had a total loss claim determined by Progressive using the Mitchell system, as did each Class Member, and Progressive refused to pay him title/license and dealer fees, just like all the other Class members. Progressive operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A. 954 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com khill@jeeveslawgroup.com rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com - and - Craig E. Rothburd, Esq. CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A. E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com 320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 251-8800 - and - Casim Adam Neff, Esq. NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 15063 St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063 Telephone: (727) 342-0617 E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com - and - Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 210 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com - and - Alec H. Schultz, Esq. Carly A. Kligler, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com - and - Stephen B. Murry, Jr., Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM Suite 2150 Poydras Center 650 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504 525-8100 Facsimile: 504 584-5249 E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com PROPER & WILD: Preston et al. Sue Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PAIGE PRESTON, STEPHANIE WALSH, RACHEL BESSER, NICOLE HALE, ARIEL HOLTON and CAITLIN FERTIG, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PROPER & WILD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, THE SANCTUM, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, SANCTUM COFFEE AND JUICE BAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, JAMIE SAVAGE, individually, and CHELSIE SAVAGE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-01137-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2020) alleges that Defendants maintained a tip pooling policy or practice, pursuant to which some or all of the tips were pooled and divided among employees who worked the shift during which the tips were collected. Defendants divided and paid a portion of the pooled tips among employees that do not serve customers, such as cooks and dish washers. Defendants also divided and paid a portion of the pooled tips to non-hourly supervisory personnel. Further, Defendants did not pay overtime premiums to Plaintiffs when they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather, they were paid a wage for only 40 hours and were offered paid time off in lieu of overtime pay. Plaintiffs each worked as servers and/or lead server at P&W/Sanctum within the period commencing three years prior to the filing of this action. Proper & Wild, LLC, The Sanctum, LLC, and Sanctum Coffee and Juice Bar, LLC own and operate restaurants/food service establishments in Central Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jill S. Schwartz, Esq. David H. Spalter, Esq. Lauren R. Robertson, Esq. JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 655 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 212 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 647-8911 Facsimile: (407) 628-4994 E-mail: jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net lrobertson@schwartzlawfirm.net PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Alleges Insurance Policy Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SOCORRO MORELAND, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class; Plaintiff, vs. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation; PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04336 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020) alleges that Prudential Insurance Company of America refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code as well as California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. According to the complaint, Prudential and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination since January 1, 2013. Prudential has failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an annual basis. As a result, Prudential has failed to properly administer policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims to beneficiary for policies improperly lapsed or terminated. Indeed, thousands of policy owners and beneficiary have lost, and continue to lose, the benefit, value and security of their life insurance; have been, and continue to be, forced into unnecessary reinstatements; and in many instances have lost all reasonable access to any insurance at all. Ultimately, Defendants have robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiary of the investment in such policies, policy benefits as well as the security intended to be provided from such insurance. Plaintiff Socorro Moreland is an individual and the policy owner and insured for the Subject Policy. The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Pruco Life Insurance Company are insurance services providers registered to do business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as AMANDA SCHATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUAPAW HOUSE, INC.; and CASEY BRIGHT, Case No. 5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a proposed Rule 23 Class Action and for all other relief to which she is entitled. QHI is a hot springs-based substance-abuse rehabilitation and behavioral health facility.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George M. Rozzell IV, Esq. Kristin Pawlik, Esq. MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC 112 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479 621 0006 E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com kpawlik@arkattorneys.com QUEST NUTRITION: Jolly Sues in S.D. New York Over Fraud Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Nutrition, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Jolly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-05125 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Quest Nutrition, LLC, produces and markets protein and health products. The Company offers protein cereals, powders, chips, cravings, and bar products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11024 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrett Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-11209-LTS (D. Mass., June 23, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. QuoteWizard.com, LLC provides online insurance services. The Company offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home, life, health, and renters insurances. QuoteWizard.com serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 mccue@massattorneys.net - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: (508) 309-4880 E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class suits initiated by Taylor Brown and Peter M. Wagner. The Company is currently involved in two California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas (RC) et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 ("Brown v. RC," and the "Brown Class Action Complaint" respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. (CEI) et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL ("Wagner v. CEI," and the "Wagner Individual Complaint" respectively). Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) (the "Wagner PAGA Claim") purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the "Wagner Class Action"). Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages sought. The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint. Reading International said, "In addition, we have denied that a PAGA representative action is appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been certified. As these cases are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to its overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters." Reading International, Inc. (RDI), is focused on the development, ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate. The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based in Culver City, California. RESTORBIO INC: Adicet Merger Deal Lacks Info, Plumley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTORBIO, INC., JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ, PAUL FONTEYNE, MICHAEL GRISSINGER, CHEN SCHOR, JONATHAN SILVERSTEIN, DAVID STEINBERG, LYNNE SULLIVAN, ADICET BIO, INC., and PROJECT OASIS MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00858-UNA (D. Del., June 26, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of resTORbio, alleging that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement of the Company's planned merger with Adicet Bio, Inc. On April 28, 2020, resTORbio, Inc.'s Board of Directors caused resTORbio to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Adicet Bio, Inc. and Project Oasis Merger Sub, Inc. The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things: (i) the merger of Adicet with and into Merger Sub, with Adicet surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of resTORbio; and (ii) the conversion of each share of Adicet capital stock into 0.8559 shares of resTORbio common stock. Upon the closing of the Proposed Transaction, stockholders of Adicet are expected to own approximately 75% of the outstanding common stock of resTORbio, while shareholders of resTORbio are expected to own approximately 25%. On June 23, 2020, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that the Company's stockholders vote to approve, among other things, the issuance of stock in connection with the Proposed Transaction. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. First, the Registration Statement omits the Company's and Adicet's financial projections, including the "financial projections provided to [JMP Securities LLC] by resTORbio relating to resTORbio and Adicet." Second, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding JPM's engagement. Third, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement, plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com RITE AID: Infant Meds Has Active Compound, Ostermeier-McLucas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GINA OSTERMEIER-MCLUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02915-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) alleges that Defendant misleads customers including the Plaintiff with its Over The Counter ("OTC") medications, the Infants' Fever Reducer & Pain Reliever and Children's Fever Reducer & Pain Reliever, that contain acetaminophen, an active ingredient in the Products, which can be dangerous, and perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses. According to the complaint, Defendant's advertisements, marketing representations, and placement of the Products in its brick-and-mortar stores are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Defendant purposely packages Infants' Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word "infants" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label. Accordingly, Defendant distributes, markets, and sells the Products in a manner that deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot safely take Children's Products. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Products contain the same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, Defendant markets and sells Infants' Products to consumers, such as Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than Children's Products. In stores, the Infants' Products cost approximately three times as much per ounce than Children's Products for the same amount of medicine. Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 610-5523 E-mail: Rachel@dapeer.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com SALLY WOLF GRINNELL: Toro Buying Cashiers Property for $525K ------------------------------------------------------------ Sally Wolf Grinnell asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas to authorize the sale of real property described as Lot E10 High Mountain Drive, Cashiers, Jackson County, North Carolina to Mark C. Toro or his assigns for $525,000. Objections, if any, must be filed within 21 days from the date of service. The Debtor has determined that the best and most efficient exit strategy for their successful emergence from Chapter 11 will likely be through a sale of substantially some of her Real Property to a third party. She has moved expeditiously to initiate and implement a process to identify and communicate with parties who might be interested in acquiring the Real Property and has simultaneously filed an application to by employ Landmark Realty Group, LLC as her real estate broker. Landmark has actively marketed the Real Property and several parties have expressed interest in purchasing the Real Property under 11 U.S.C. Section 363. The Debtor, with the assistance of her broker, has determined that the Purchaser's offer is the best proposal that she has received for the Real Property. By the Motion, the Debtor asks the entry of an order following the conclusion of the Sale Hearing authorizing her to sell the Real Property pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit A and to consummate such other related and necessary transactions in connection therewith to the Purchaser, with such Real Property to be transferred and conveyed free and clear of all liens, claims, interests and encumbrances. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Debtor's sale of the Real Property to the Purchaser or his assigns for a purchase price of $525,000 and on an "as is, where is basis." The sale of the Real Property will be free and clear of any and all liens, claims, interests and encumbrances. Because of the Purchaser's desire to close the transaction within five days after the entry of the order approving the sale, the Debtor asks that the Court orders and directs that the order approving the Motion will not be automatically stayed for 14 days. In connection therewith, she asks the Court to authorize the title company assisting in the consummation of the transaction can close the sale immediately upon the entry of the order. A copy of the Exhibit A is available at https://tinyurl.com/yclao5g8 from PacerMonitor.com free of charge. Sally Wolf Grinnell sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Case No. 20-50872) on May 4, 2020. The Debtor tapped Eric Terry, Esq., as counsel. SAN DIEGO: Guardian Ad Litem Petition Denied in J.F. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL. (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice the petition by Alexandra Feilis and Aron Feiles to be appointed as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F. A guardian ad litem is a guardian, usually a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or minor party. The sole grounds stated in the petition for Petitioners' appointment are that they are J.F.'s parents and are responsible adults, and that J.F. resides with them. Yet, the petition also states that J.F. does not have a general guardian. If J.F. resides with Petitioners, who are his parents, and they are not his general guardians, further information is needed about J.F.'s living arrangements. If, on the other hand, Petitioners have custody of J.F. and care for J.F.'s needs, it is unclear how they are not J.F.'s general guardians who could sue on J.F.'s behalf under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A). A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uzae2lf from Leagle.com. J.F., a minor, by and through Guardians Ad Litem Aron Feiles and Alexandra Feiles, individually on and on behalf of the proposed class, Plaintiff, represented by David Gerald Greco - grecod@rmolawyers.com - RMO LLP. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Alleges Illegal Repossession of Vehicle ----------------------------------------------------------------- HUGHKELLY and CHRISTINE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 200601926 (Pa. Common Pleas Ct., Philadelphia Cty., June 30, 2020) is a consumer class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated people who have had their vehicle repossessed in Pennsylvania, due to Defendant's systematic failure to comply with the strict statutory requirements relating to Post-Repossession Consumer Disclosure Notices a/k/a "Notices of Repossession." In approximately June 2017, Santander caused Hugh and Christine Kelly's 2006 Chrysler Pacifica to be repossessed. Santander then sent them a Notice of Repossession dated June 16, 2017. After Santander sold the vehicle, it sent them a Post-Sale Notice dated June 24, 2018. Santander sent a substantially similar template Notice of Repossession and Post-Sale Notice to all Representative Plaintiffs, excluding only differing personally identifiable information and unique information regarding the vehicle/loan data. Santander, however, as a matter of policy and practice, did not pay to any third party or otherwise incur any expense for storing the repossessed vehicles of the Representative Plaintiffs as of the date of the Notice of Repossession. Santander did not pay any fee, cost, or expense associated with the storage of any of the Representative Plaintiffs' repossessed vehicles. According to the complaint, Defendant had a secretive arrangement with its repossessors, repossession brokers, and/or auctions to permit it/them to assess Redemption Fees, Storage Expenses, and/or Personal Property Fees on Representative Plaintiffs and (putative) class members in order for them to redeem their vehicle and/or regain possession of any of their personal belongings left in the repossessed vehicle. Santander Consumer USA Inc. is a Dallas, Texas-headquartered sales financing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (800) 601-0808 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Saidman Sues Over Work Harassment, Bias ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARA SAIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02193 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated women workers at the Defendant's oil rigs, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in an intentional, systemic, company-wide pattern and/or practice of discrimination by, among other things: (1) subjecting the Plaintiff and the Class members to differential treatment and discriminating against them in the terms and conditions of their employment; (2) minimizing, ignoring, mishandling, or otherwise failing to adequately respond to complaints and incidents of sex discrimination and hostile work environment; (3) discouraging women from reporting sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or a hostile work environment; and (4) subjecting the Plaintiff and the Class to a hostile work environment and other forms of discrimination. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field engineer at the Defendant's onshore oil rigs in Texas from January 2017 until her termination. Schlumberger's actions and failures to act have caused the Plaintiff to suffer harm, including, without limitation, lost earnings, lost benefits, and other severe financial losses, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish. Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services company, with principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net - and – Michael D. Palmer, Esq. Nicole E. Wiitala, Esq. Carolin E. Guentert, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com cguentert@sanfordheisler.com SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Court Rules on Class Certification in Marti ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned VANESSA MARTI, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHREIBER/COHEN, LLC, & DAVID ROWAND HOWARD, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:18-40164-TSH, (D. Mass.). Midland Funding, LLC currently holds the rights to Plaintiff's alleged debt. Schreiber/Cohen LLC, a law firm, represents Midland. David Rowand Howard is Schreiber/Cohen's Chief Compliance Attorney. Vanessa Marti commenced the putative class action against Schreiber/Cohen, LLC and David Rowand Howard alleging that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") by sending collections letters that fail to identify the current creditor on her debt. Plaintiff now moves to certify two classes comprised of Massachusetts residents receiving similar communications. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff meets the Rule 23(a) requirements for class certification. The Court therefore focuses on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements. Predominance Plaintiff's legal claim rests on whether the format of Exhibit A, which Schreiber/Cohen mailed to thousands of Massachusetts residents, sufficiently identifies the creditor for each debtor under the FDCPA and MCPA. This issue is common among all class members and can be resolved in a single adjudication. Plaintiff offers to amend her class definitions to include the further requirement that each class member have an account that originates with Comenity Bank. Under this formulation, the FDCPA class would comprise (i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (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. The MCPA class would include (i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (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 this action. As Defendants conceded during oral argument, if the classes include this additional requirement, common issues will predominate over individual issues. Thus, Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating compliance with the predominance requirement with respect to the amended class definitions, the Court finds. Superiority A class action is the superior method if it will achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results. Here, a class action would promote uniformity of decision and save time and expense. The main issues in this action, i.e., whether the form of Exhibit A violates the FDCPA or MCPA and the effect of any arbitration provision on the ability to raise this claim are common to all members of the classes and should be answered in the same way. The Court also finds 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 finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating compliance with the superiority requirement with respect to the amended class definitions. In sum, for the reasons stated, the Court rules that Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied with respect to the original class definitions but granted with respect to the amended definitions. Specifically, the Court certifies: -- an FDCPA class comprising "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (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" (Docket No. 50 at 9); and -- an MCPA class comprising "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (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 this action." A full-text copy of the District Court's Order and Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/wmv5lla from Leagle.com. Vanessa Marti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Yarbrough , Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., 2601 East Oakland Park Boulevard # 402 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306, pro hac vice, O. Randolph Bragg , Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, 25 E Washington St, #900, Chicago, Illinois 60602, pro hac vice & Christopher M. Brine , Brine Consumer Law, 100 Grove Street, Suite 210, Worcester, MA, 01605 Schreiber/Cohen, LLC & David Rowand Howard, Defendants, represented by Andrew M. Schneiderman - aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Suit Seeks to Certify Florida Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PEDRO GARAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., a Utah Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-23323-JLK (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. certifying these Florida Classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and/or (b)(2); Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class: "all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August 8, 2017, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS. Breach of Contract Class: "all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August 8, 2014, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS. Unjust Enrichment Class: "all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August 8, 2015, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS. Excluded from the Florida Classes are SPS and its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Because the Plaintiff, like the McWhorter plaintiffs, asserts typical claims, is more than adequate, and is ready, willing, and able to represent the interests of these Florida Classes, certification is warranted and the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion for class certification.; b. appointing the Plaintiff Pedro Garay as Class Representative; and c. appointing the law firms of The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC and Meland Russin & Budwick, P.A. as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The suit alleges that the Defendant violates the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by charging its customers extra fees to make their mortgage payments by phone or online.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Barbara C. Lewis, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com - and - Michael S. Budwick, Esq. Solomon B. Genet, Esq. MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A. 3200 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6363 Facsimile: (305) 358-1221 E-mail: mbudwick@melandrussin.com sgenet@melandrussin.com SK ENERGY: Carpe Carma Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CARPE CARMA, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID NIEMANN; AND BRAD LUCAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-04312 (Filed May 12, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on June 23, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-04138-VKDto the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. The Plaintiff brought this class action complaint for damages, restitution, and injunctive relief against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the California's Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. Carpe Carma is a tow-truck company and has been engaged in the business of towing in California. SK Energy is located in Houston, Texas, and is part of the petroleum & petroleum products wholesalers industry. Vitol Inc. operates a trading firm. Vitol charters tankers and transports crude oil along with other oil products, as well as offers pipe gas, fill and operate terminals, and ship coal and sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com - and - Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: cadio@saveri.com - and - Cornelia Ho-Chin Dai, Esq. Randall R. Renick, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK AND DAI LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103-3645 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 E-mail: cdai@hadsellstormer.com rrr@hadsellstormer.com - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. SAVERI AND SAVERI INC 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: rick@saveri.com - and - Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq. Kelly Christina Weil, Esq. Reid Wilson Wayman Gaa, Esq. Sarah Van Culin, Esq. Adam John Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com kweil@cpmlegal.com rgaa@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com Intervenor Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., is represented by: Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Samantha Stein, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com sstein@hausfeld.com STATE COLLECTION: Gordon Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as SARAH GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00923-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff 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 plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint her as the class representative, and appoint her 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 Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com STATE FARM: Clippinger Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jessica Clippinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. CT-1844-20, was removed from the Tennessee Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee a on July 2, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02482 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute. State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher L. Vescovo, Esq. LEWIS THOMASON One Commerce Square 40 S. Main St., 29th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 525-8721 Fax: (901) 525-6722 Email: cvescovo@lewisthomason.com STEAM GENERATING: Miller Seeks to Certify Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PAM MILLER, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. THE STEAM GENERATING TEAM, LLC, and SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-CV-0429-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of a "Straight Time Workers Class" consisting of: "all individuals who worked for, or on behalf of, The Steam Generating Team, LLC who were, at any point in the last 3 years, paid the same hourly rate for hours worked including those over 40 hours in a work week (or "straight time for overtime"); 2. approving the proposed notice and consent forms; 3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the Straight Time Workers via mail, email, and text message, along with an identical reminder notice; 4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time Workers by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms are returned as undeliverable; 5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time Workers to join the case; and 6. directing SGT to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Straight Time Workers within 10 days of the Court's order in a usable electronic format. SGT provides various industrial replacement services to the nuclear industry. The company provides nuclear construction services, fuel, engineering, and heavy components for nuclear power plants.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Christopher Strianese, Esq. Tamara Huckert, Esq. 3501 Monroe Rd. Charlotte, NC 28205 Telephone: 704-966-2101 E-mail: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com STERLING HOME: Class Settlement in Darby Suit Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order granting Settlement Agreement Final Approval in the case captioned BEVOLYN DARBY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING HOME CARE, INC., MARK R. ZWERGER, MATTHEW G. ANDERSON, MICHELE THOMAS EILEEN KILLEEN, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 5370 (RMB). (S.D.N.Y.) This matter came on for hearing upon the Court's Order for preliminarily approving the Settlement in this action. The Court approves the Class Action Settlement Agreement, subject to modifications discussed below, as fair, adequate, and reasonable under applicable law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the FLSA. The Settlement Administrator and the Settling Parties, including the Class, the Named Plaintiff, and the Defendants, are required to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as modified by this Order. The Court is lowering Class Counsel's requested fee from 25.1% of the Total Settlement Amount to 20%. Pursuant to the factors set forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000), the Court awards Class Counsel a fee of 20% of the Total Settlement Amount, or $66,174.68, as fair and reasonable. The Court cannot determine from the time sheets submitted the amount of time Class Counsel may have devoted to work on the Individual Settlement between Defendants and BEVOLYN DARBY, as opposed to how much time he worked for the Class. Class Counsel is only entitled to be reimbursed out of the common fund for work he performed on behalf of the class, and this is another reason his requested fee is being reduced. Regarding the fifth Goldberger factor, the requested fee in relation to the settlement, a fee of 20% of the Total Settlement Amount of $330,873.41, or $66,174.68, is reasonable and consistent with fees granted in similar wage-and-hour class actions. The reasonableness of a $66,174.68 fee award out of a Total Settlement Amount of $330,873.41 is not inconsistent with a lodestar cross-check. Regarding the sixth Goldberger factor, public policy considerations, a fee award of 20% balances the overarching concern for moderation of common fund attorney's fees awards with the principle that the attorneys whose efforts created the fund are entitled to a reasonable fee. As a result of the Court's downward modification of the requested fee award, there is some $16,973.77 of the Total Settlement Amount which is unallocated. This amount is to be redistributed to Class Members on a pro rata basis. Class Counsel has requested $1,526.40 in expenses reflecting, in large measure, the costs of filing and serving the complaint, mailing the collective action notice, and filing papers with the Clerk of the Court. The Court approves these expenses as they appear to be reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Defendants have retained the firm of Hamlin & Burton to serve as the Settlement Administrator. Pursuant to an agreement between Defendants and the Settlement Administrator, Defendants are solely responsible for paying the Settlement Administrator a fee of $15,000. See Jan. 9, 2019 Settlement Administrator Agreement, attached as Exhibit A. This $15,000 fee is in addition to the Total Settlement Amount of $330,873.41 being paid by Defendants. See Settlement Agreement at Paragraph 2(a). The Court, as described above, also notes that there is an Individual Settlement between Defendants and BEVOLYN DARBY, pursuant to which Ms. Darby is to receive $21,229.95 in exchange for a release of her non-class action New York Labor Law and contract claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the District Court’s January 2, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qlcqepz from Leagle.com Bevolyn Darby, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Coudert Rand , Law Office of William Coudert Rand, 711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505, New York, NY 10017 Sterling Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan M. Gilbride - jgilbride@kbrlaw.com - Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Cara Ann O'Sullivan - COSULLIVAN@KBRLAW.COM - Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP & Evelyn Eva Dormer , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP,120 Broadway14th Floor, New York, NY10271 John Does, Defendant, represented by Joan M. Gilbride , Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP & Cara Ann O'Sullivan , Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP. Mark R. Zwerger, Mathew G. Anderson, Michele Thomas & Eileen Killeen, Defendants, represented by Cara Ann O'Sullivan , Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP. STOP N GO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Castillo Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO TORRES CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOP N GO CORP (D/B/A STOP N GO); BHAKTI 61 INC (D/B/A STOP N GO); NEIL PATEL aka NIRMAL PATEL; and PIRO PATEL, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02779 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 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 Plaintiff Torres was employed as a sandwich maker, stock worker and porter. Stop N Go Corp (d/b/a Stop N Go) is a family owned full service convenience store chain based in Madison, Wisc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 604 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery Underway in Speakes Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that limited discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Speakes v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. The Company and two of its former officers are named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action entitled Speakes v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., filed October 25, 2016, which is now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against all defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. It generally alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection with an alleged conspiracy to fix drug prices. On September 24, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The case is proceeding with limited discovery. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt. TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BAO YU YANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TASTE OF NORTH CHINA, LTD d/b/a Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC d/b/a Taste of North China; and NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC d/b/a Taste of North China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO ZHAO, and "JOHN" WANG, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting collective action status to the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed any time from April 8, 2016, (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when the Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Chinese; and 9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. Taste of China is a Chinese restaurant with many specialty dishes, including dumplings.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 TEVA CORP: Ontario Teachers & Anchorage Police Seek Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00558-SRU (D. Conn.), the Lead Plaintiff Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and Plaintiff Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System move the Court for entry of an Order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and 3. pursuant to Rule 23(g), appointing Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Class Counsel, with Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP as Class Liaison Counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Javier Bleichmar, Esq. Evan A. Kubota, Esq. Benjamin F. Burry, Esq. Thayne Stoddard, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com jbleichmar@bfalaw.com ekubota@bfalaw.com bburry@bfalaw.com tstoddard@bfalaw.com - and - Marc J. Kurzman, Esq. Christopher J. Rooney, Esq. CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP 707 Summer Street, Suite 300 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 252-2680 Facsimile: (203) 325-8608 E-mail: mkurzman@carmodylaw.com crooney@carmodylaw.com TEXAS HEALTH: Faces Strong Class Suit in Texas District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Texas Health Resources, et al. The case is styled as William Strong, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Texas Health Resources, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Plano, Case No. 366-03202-2020 (Tex. Dist., Collin Cty., July 2, 2020). The case type is stated as "All Other Civil Cases." Texas Health Resources is one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit health systems in the United States and the largest in North Texas in terms of inpatients and outpatients served.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Blumberg, Esq. BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC 2304 West Interstate 20, Suite 190 Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: 817-277-1500 Facsimile: 817-277-1170 TIKTOK INC: Parents Sue Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- N.T. and L.T., minors, by and through their guardian, Darcy Tellone, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and S.P., J.P., K.P., G.P., minors, by and through their guardian, Katie Patterman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03771 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2020) alleges that Defendants surreptitiously collect, use, and store users' facial geometry through their TikTok popular smartphone application, which is considered as private, legally protected biometric information pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The TikTok app allows its users to create and share short videos. TikTok offers a number of audio and visual features and effects that can be applied to users' videos—including popular song clips, moments from TV shows, stickers, animations, face filters, and face trackers. According to the complaint, Defendants fail to disclose or obtain consent for this collection, use, or storage. And they further fail to disclose why they collect, use, and store Defendants' biometric data, who has access to the data, or how long the data will be retained—all of which is required by law. In addition to the personal information that users knowingly and unknowingly provide to TikTok, the company also collects information about the user from third parties, such as Facebook and advertising companies, as well as information provided by other TikTok users. Plaintiffs bring this class action against TikTok and its owner, ByteDance, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, seeking damages and injunctive relief for Defendants' privacy violations. TikTok Inc. is a video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and - Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (332) 216-2101 Facsimile: (917) 725-9346 E-mail: melissa@feganscott.com jonathan@feganscott.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Gendron Suit Moved From California to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elizabeth Gendron, Roger Carter, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japan corporation; Toyota Motor North America Inc., a California corporation; Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., a Kentucky corporation; Denso Corporation, a Japan corporation; Denso International America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Case No. 8:20-cv-00775, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 2, 2020. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02947-WFK-CLP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachele R Rickert, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Brittany DeJong, Esq. Marisa C. LivesayMonesi, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 239-4599 Fax: (619) 234-4599 Email: rickert@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Brian Shortnacy, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4355 Fax: (213) 443-4310 Email: mshortnacy@kslaw.com - and - Jacquelene Anna Marcott, Esq. Raymond H. Hua, Esq. YUKEVICH CAVANAUGH 355 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: (213) 362-7777 Fax: (213) 362-7788 Email: jmarcott@yukelaw.com rhua@yukelaw.com TRANS WORLD: Spack et al. Seek Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as Collective representative v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and RECORD TOWN, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily approving a joint stipulation of settlement and release; 2. provisionally certifying the settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(a) and 23(b) (3) and certifying the settlement collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of effectuating the settlement; 3. appointing as representatives of the class Carol Spack, Tabitha Schmidt and Natasha Roper; 4. appointing Mashel Law, L.L.C. as Class Counsel; 5. approving the notices of settlement and fairness hearing for the opt-in and non-opt-in Plaintiffs and directing their distribution; 6. preliminarily approving Class Counsel's requested fee award of 33.33% of the Settlement Fund; 7. directing when Class Counsel must file a motion for final approval of the settlement sought in the joint stipulation; and 8. scheduling a final settlement fairness hearing.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan T. Mashel, Esq. MASHEL LAW, LLC Web: mashellawllc.com 500 Campus Dr Suite 303 Morganville, NJ 0775 Telephone: 732-385-8448 TWIN STONE: Serrano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- RIGOBERTO SERRANO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TWIN STONE DESIGNS AND INSTALLATION, INC., MAYRA PARENTE, and PLINIO IGNACIO MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-61282-RS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a construction worker from approximately July 2012 to December 2019. Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated construction workers worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant failed to properly compensate them at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40. Mayra Parente and Plinio Ignacio Medina own and operate Twin Stone. Twin Stone Designs and Installation, Inc. is a construction company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha W. Blye, Esq. Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 Emails: tblye@saenzanderson.com yramirez@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Jackson et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER JACKSON; and MARKELA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANCORP, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-02310 (D. Kan., June 24, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as call center employee. U.S. Bancorp is a diversified financial services company that provides lending and depository services, cash management, foreign exchange and trust and investment management services. The Company also provides credit card services, mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, and leasing. U.S Bancorp operates in the Midwest and Western United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@paullp.com Laura@paullp.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com U.S. BANK: Fails to Timely Release Mortgage Liens, Ballard Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH BALLARD, RONALD ROCHESTER, DANIEL CULVER and NICOLE CULVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK, N.A.; OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05129 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of New York Real Property Law Sec. 275 and New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Sec. 1921. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated mortgagors, allege that the Defendants frequently fail to comply with their obligations to timely present and file mortgage satisfactions. These failures to timely release and discharge mortgage liens cause actual and particularized injuries to the Plaintiffs and Class members, which include: (1) real risk of harm caused by the Defendants clouding of titles to the Plaintiffs' and Class members' respective properties encumbered by the Defendants' mortgage liens; (2) difficulties and potential difficulties in securing financing on another property after repaying their mortgage or home equity loans; (3) difficulties and potential difficulties in selling or encumbering the subject property after repaying their mortgage or home equity loans; (4) burdening property owners' rights to free alienability; (5) frustrating the orderly transfer of property; (6) paying the filing fees for the timely filing of a satisfaction of mortgage or certificate of discharge that was not timely filed by Defendants; (7) the impairment of credit and credit scores caused by failures to timely extinguish repaid debts and credit obligations; and (8) any and all obstacles, whether tangible or intangible, incurred by borrowers resulting from the Defendants' failing to timely discharge mortgage liens. U.S. Bank, N.A. is subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp and is a nationally-chartered bank that maintains its headquarters at 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida-chartered corporation that provides personal and residential lending and servicing, with its headquarters and its principle executive offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company and is a nationally-chartered bank that maintains its headquarters in San Francisco, California and its principle executive offices in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com - and – Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the court order denying class certification in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, has been stayed. On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions (Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. The company had asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a smaller class of royalty owners than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners under certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. On July 29, 2019, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification. Plaintiffs are appealing the order denying class certification, which is now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230, District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, has been stayed. On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions (Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells. Unit has numerous defenses including that it has fulfilled its lease royalty obligations with respect to gas consumed as fuel. As to the propriety of class certification, we are defending on the grounds that the class involves thousands of different leases that have to be individually examined and construed, making class-wide liability determinations impossible. On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff moved for class certification. On February 6, 2020, the Court entered its order certifying the class. Unit said, "We have appealed the Court's order, which is now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing." Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Cockerell Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion for class certification in Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, has been stayed. On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions (Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working interest owners in the company's Oklahoma wells. The company had asserted several defenses including that the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law. Further, Plaintiff's requests for relief beyond payment of interest allegedly due are barred by statute. The company filed a summary judgment motion as to named Plaintiff's individual claims. On February 28, 2020, the Court granted the company's summary judgment on several of the Plaintiff's individual claims, including standing, but found that some claims presented fact issues. the Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court asking it to reconsider its ruling. On May 4, 2020, the Court reversed its summary judgment ruling on the company's challenge to Plaintiff's standing and how interest should be calculated. Plaintiff subsequently filed its motion for class certifications, which is now stayed due to the Company's bankruptcy filing. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY NINIVAGGI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Case No. 604688/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 22, 2020. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02762 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at and who, because of the Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. With approximately 18,500 undergraduate and 4,500 graduate students, UD is the largest university in Delaware. UD offers 148 bachelor's programs, 121 master's programs (with 13 joint degrees) and 55 doctoral programs across its eight colleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christie R. McGuinness, Esq. SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP 1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2005 New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 980-7200 URBAN COMMONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Kandil Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PIEDAD KANDIL, as an aggrieved employee and private attorney general v. URBAN COMMONS QUEENSWAY, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV23710 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees seeking civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private Attorney General Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees by failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants have employed the Plaintiff to work as a parking lot attendant since March 2018. The Defendants are a hotel and tourist attraction management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. S. Emi Minne, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com emi@protectionlawgroup.com VICTOR HILL: Fails to Take COVID-19 Measures in Jail, Jones Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA JONES, RANDOLPH MITCHELL, MICHAEL SINGLETON, and BARRY WATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VICTOR HILL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia; ROLAND BOEHRER, in his official capacity as Chief Deputy; TERRANCE GIBSON, in his official capacity as Jail Administrator; KEVIN THOMAS, in his official capacity as Jail Security Operations Section Commander; and MAURICE JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Jail Administrative Operations Section Commander, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02791-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated detainees in the Clayton County Jail, allege that the Defendants failed to implement appropriate measures to protect the detainees and staff from the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a significant outbreak in the facility. These failures include: (1) housing three or four detainees in two-person cells and have made no effective effort at social distancing; (2) failing to provide basic sanitation and personal hygiene; (3) failing to issue reasonably adequate protective equipment; (4) failing to implement a process for identifying medically vulnerable and disabled people and taking affirmative steps for their protection; (5) failing to implement a reasonable process for identifying, testing, and isolating COVID-19 infections; and (6) failing to educate detainees about COVID-19. The Defendants' inactions and omissions have put detainees, particularly those who are medically vulnerable and those with disabilities, at risk of serious illness or even death. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah Geraghty, Esq. Jeremy Cutting, Esq. Ryan Primerano, Esq. SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 60 Walton Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org - and – Brandon Buskey, Esq. Robert W. Hunter, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 284-7364 E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org - and – Kosha S. Tucker, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA P.O. Box 77208 Atlanta, GA 30357 Telephone: (678) 981-5295 E-mail: ktucker@acluga.org - and – Stephen L. Pevar, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 765 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 570-9830 E-mail: spevar@aclu.org - and – David C. Fathi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6603 E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org VITOL INC: Long et al. Allege Gasoline Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------- JAMES AND VANESSA LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; and SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04453 (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Cartwright Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful acts to restrain trade in the spot market price for gasoline in California from February 18, 2015 through December 31, 2016. The Defendants took advantage of the gasoline supply disruptions caused by an explosion at a gasoline refinery complex located in Torrance, California in February 2015 to restrain competition in the spot market for gasoline and gasoline components and to artificially inflate their prices. The Defendants' coordinated trading activities include: (1) engaging in sham transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the supply and demand dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2) trading with each other with the purpose and effect of creating spikes in the spot market price; and (3) entering into prearranged, unreported buy and sell transactions with each other to share profits from the scheme. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business conduct, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class suffered financial damages as they paid more for gasoline than they would have paid in a competitive market. SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of SK Energy International. SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26 Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea. Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company, with business office located at 2925 Richmond Avenue 11th Floor Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: P. Terry Anderlini, Esq. ANDERLINI & MCSWEENEY LLC 66 Bovet Road, Suite 285 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 212-0001 (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 212-0081 (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tanderlini@amlawoffice.com - and – Brian D. Clark, Esq. Simeon A. Morbey, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com samorbey@locklaw.com WALDORF ASTORIA: Lopez Seeks Payment for Off-the-Clock Hours ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, MAYRA I. LOPEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WALDORF ASTORIA EMPLOYER LLC a/k/a WALDORF ASTORIA ORLANDO d/b/a WALDORF ASTORIA ORLANDO, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01158-cv-01158-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 9, 2016 to March 20, 2020 as non-exempted, full-time, hourly paid housekeeper. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked regularly more than 40 hours every week from Wednesday to Sunday, and sometimes 6 days per week. Also, Plaintiff was required by Defendant to begin at 7:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., but was not allowed to punch-in until 8:00 a.m. As a result, Plaintiff was not compensated for a minimum of 5 off-the-clock hours every week, which constitute unpaid overtime hours. Waldorf Astoria Employer LLC a/k/a Waldorf Astoria Orlando d/b/a Waldorf Astoria Orlando provides hospitality services and operates the Waldorf Astoria Orlando hotel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WALGREENS BOOTS: North Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the case captioned CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Plaintiff(s), v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-CV-2143 JCM (DJA), (D. Nev.). The instant action arises from the national and widely-publicized opioid crisis. The City of North Las Vegas sued a variety of entities and individuals responsible for manufacturing, marketing, and selling prescription opioids, including Oxycontin, Vicodin, and Percocet and their generic counterparts. Plaintiff groups the defendants into drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, detailers, pharmacies, and health care providers. The City filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, alleging public nuisance under Nevada and common law, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment against all defendants. It also alleges negligence against the distributors, pharmacies, and health care providers. Finally, it brings a claim against certain defendants for alleged violations of Nevada's Racketeering Act. Defendants timely removed the action to the Nevada District Court. Defendants removed the case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants contend that the complaint raises issues under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) such that the City's state-law claims are subject to federal jurisdiction. Defendants also argue that the case is otherwise removable pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). On December 26, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") entered a conditional transfer order ("CTO"), finding that the action appears to "involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and assigned to Judge Polster." Defendants moved to stay the case until the JPML renders a final decision on whether to transfer this action to the Opiate MDL. Presently before the Court are: -- the City of North Las Vegas's motion to remand to state court; and -- Defendants' motion for a temporary stay pending likely transfer to multidistrict litigation. On review, the Court notes that the parties do not argue that the CSA provides a private, federal cause of action for violations thereof. Thus, invoking violations of the CSA as an element of a state-law claim -- e.g., duty and standard of care in a negligence action -- does not invoke federal question jurisdiction because it is "insufficiently 'substantial' to confer federal-question jurisdiction." Even to the extent that reference to the CSA may raise a possible federal question, it would not be "necessarily raised." The city in this case alleges that defendants breached duties imposed by state statutes and regulations, specifically NAC Sec. 453.400. The city may also successfully argue that defendants breached the general duty of reasonable care. Thus, defendants' arguments go to the merits of the city's claims, not to the federal court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the CSA is not proper grounds for the removal of this action, the Court opines. Unless removal was appropriate pursuant to CAFA, remand is warranted. As to the CAFA premise, the City argues that defendants "ha[ve] failed to satisfy CAFA's most fundamental requirement - i.e., showing that this case falls within CAFA's definition of a class action and that the [city] is not the real party in interest." The city represents that it "is not trying to collect personal damages on behalf of North Las Vegas residents for the residents' injuries. . . ." Instead, the city "is a single, municipal [p]laintiff seeking damages it incurred as a result of [d]efendants' misconduct." Because the city is pursuing - and will only be able to recover - its own damages, this case is not a class action and does not fall within the purview of CAFA. In sum, Judge Mahan (1) granted the city's motion to remand, and (2) denied defendants' motion for a temporary stay pending likely transfer to multidistrict litigation. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/jyH1WP https://tinyurl.com/u6tfznl from Leagle.com City of North Las Vegas, Plaintiff, represented by Micaela L. Rustia Moore , North Las Vegas City Attorney Office, Richard Hy , Robert M. Adams , Eglet Prince & Robert T. Eglet , Eglet Prince, 400 S. 7th St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Co. & Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark A. Hutchison - mhutchison@hutchlegal.com - Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Todd L. Moody -tmoody@hutchlegal.com - Hutchison & Steffen, LLP, Alex J. Harris - alex.harris@bartlit-beck.com,- Bartlit Beck LLP & Lester C. Houtz - lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com - Bartlit Beck LLP. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Actavis Inc., formerly known as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC & Actavis Pharma, Inc, formerly known as Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants, represented by Philip M. Hymanson , Hymanson and Hymanson, 3980 Howard Hughes Pkwy in Las Vegas. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. & Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda C. Yen -ayen@mcdonaldcarano.com - McDonald Carano Wilson & Patricia K. Lundvall , McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, 100 West Liberty Street, 10TH Floor Reno , NV 89505 WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Dust Removal Spray ------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart Inc. and AW Distribution Inc. are facing a proposed class action over the sale of dust removal spray that some purchasers intentionally inhale to get high. The lead plaintiffs are a mother and daughter whose car was struck by a driver who was high on Ultra Duster, a computer dust remover spray containing difluoroethane (DFE) distributed by AW and sold by Walmart, the complaint alleges. Because DFE is a central nervous system depressant, when inhaled, it causes "debilitating and impairing effects" such as unconsciousness, drowsiness, dizziness, suffocation, and paralysis, according to the complaint. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Unpaid Off-The-Clock Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LEE MITCHELL and VIRGINIA ELLISON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02444 (W.D. Tenn., June 23, 2020), is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid "off-the-clock" wages; "miscalculated" overtime compensation; and "deducting (recapturing) hourly wages and overtime previously paid to them in subsequent weeks. The Defendant is a multinational financial service headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with central offices throughout the United States and the fourth largest bank in the U.S. in total assets. The Defendant has been an employer of the Plaintiffs, who worked as an hourly-paid home mortgage consultants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company, Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. continue to face asbestos-related product liability claims. The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our sale of I&S. However, the Company has indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not expect that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/77RP2S ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund regarding insurance coverage on pending asbestos lawsuits involving the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies. "In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms. "Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order, the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and prior approval of the settlements. "Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3M9FFc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation still defends itself against multiple lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches of the Company's Stearns division, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020. The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. "In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/FDpg7x ********* 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 ***