/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 142 Headlines 12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Seeks Review of Decision in Hines Class Suit AB STAFFING: Misclassifies Employees, Coffey Claims ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Underpays Employees, Ugale Claims ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Faces Slomanski FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ALLSTATE MEDICAL: Reaches Deal on PIP Coverage Under Auto Insurance AMERICAN AIRLINES: Texas Court Dismisses Hoeffert's Claims AMERICAN GEZHI-MART: Untimely Pays Wages and Goods, Cheung Claims AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in Donelson Suit to 8th Cir. ANTHEM INC: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Savett Consumer Suit APL LOGISTICS: Coleman Wins Preliminary Nod of Class Settlement ARRIS INT'L: Knowles Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir. AUTOZONE STORES: Suit Mooted When Class Rep. Settles, 9th Cir. Says BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Cir. BL 62 WEST: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Ayala Claims BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads BROOKLYN FARE: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act BUREAU OF PRISONS: Certification of Rule 23 Class Action Sought CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Abdullah Suit CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay Sues Over Passengers' Exposure to COVID-19 CHHAYA NEWS: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Sexual Harassment CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Appeals Order in Consumer Suit to 9th Cir. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Pinkhasov Files FDCPA Suit in Fla. COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Faces Feist FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania COMPASS GROUP: Remand of Bryant BIPA Suit to State Court Flipped CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Behboudi Suit Claims DEFENSE TAX: Chen Wang Suit Seeks Class Certification DHR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hartman Suit in California Super. Court DIRECTV INC: Murphy Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon et al. Balk at Unfair Charges of Passes DOW CHEMICAL: Court Denies Jurisdictional Discovery in Guidry EBTH.COM LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York EMERALD HOLDING: Facing Steamfitters Suit Over Rights Offering ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Shingler FDCPA Suit in South Carolina EPIC GAMES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Krohm Class Suit EPIC GAMES: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in Krohm Suit FBCS INC: Faces Battiste FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letter FLORITE PLUMBING: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Back Wages G-STAR RAW: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Martinez Alleges GG HOMES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads GRAND LUX: Court Dismisses ADA NYCHRL Suit HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Settlement in Wolf Suit Gets Final Approval HFM INC: Brigati Suit Removed From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Golden et al Sue Over Unlawful Collection Letter HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Rest & Meal Periods, Carlson Claims IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Newman Suit Challenges Separation of Match IDL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces C.B. Mills Suit in New York Supreme Ct. IDT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment on Hernandez Claims IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss INFINITY AUTO: 11th Cir. Affirms Plantation Breach Suit Dismissal INTEGRITY SERVICE: Conditional Certification in Moyer Suit Granted INTELEX USA: Gonzalez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Court Compels Arbitration in Fontaine Suit K&K BORING: Mackey Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Drill Operators KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soares Alleges Incorrect Sick Pay & Incentives KELLER UNLIMITED: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Sellers Suit KEWAUNEE FABRICATIONS: Faces Hildebrandt Suit Over Unfair Wages KINGOLD JEWELRY: Continues to Defend Chitturi Class Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Knoppe Insurance Lawsuit LOUS|ANA: Settlement in Creppel v. La. Health Dept. Gets Final OK MASSACHUSETTS: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Howell's Early Release MCKESSON CORP: Andrasko Files PI Suit in Ohio MDL 2958: Breakwater Asks Panel to Consolidate Suits in S.D.N.Y. MESA AIR: Court Appoints Dekalb as Lead Plaintiff MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending MISSION PETS: Failure to Prosecute Dismisses Action MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Settlement Class Certifcation MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Noble Seeks Approval to Notify Workers MUSICTODAY II LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Seeks Conditional Class Certification NEW JERSEY: Fischer Appeals Ruling in Teachers Suit to 3rd Cir. NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones FLSA Suit NEW YORK CITY: S.D.N.Y. Consolidates Azor-El, Inmates COVID Suits NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Maldonado Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: Board Files Seven Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit NFL: Attorneys' Award in Concussion Injury Suit Partly Upheld NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Court Dismisses Weaver CSPA Violation Suit NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon Lawsuit Dismissed NORTHERN TRUST: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference in Barney Case OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Bid in Beard Suit Stricken OKLAHOMA: Walker Dormitory Infested With Toxic Mold, Melton Says OLLY SHOES LLC: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under ADA ORANGE COUNTY, CA: HHR Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit OVATION CREDIT: Tolling of Statue of Limitations in Diggs Denied PARAGON INDUSTRIES: $3.75M Settlement in Castro Has Prelim Approval PHILIPS BRYANT: $975K Settlement in Chang Suit Gets Final Approval PNS STORES: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Alleging ADA Violation PORCELANA CORONA: $4.33MM in Attorneys Fees Awarded in Fessler Suit PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dowe Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Cir. RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing ROBERT CLARK: Court Remands Action to State Court RYB EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Zhang Amended Securities Complaint SANDALS RESORTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in McCoy FDUTPA Suit STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Simmons Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees SUNSHINE DADE: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Over ADA Violation TD AMERITRADE: Knowles Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Dismisses Class Suit on Potato Skins Chips TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Peguero Fraud Suit in C.D. California TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages U GYM: Faces Manzares Employment Suit in California Super. Court U.S. OIL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in O'Hanlon ADA Suit to 3rd Cir. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Manzini Suit ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Hanbser Suit Over Wage Pay Violations UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nedley Seeks Tuition and Fee Refunds VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin VYSTAR CORP: Rotmans Furniture Defends LaChapelle Class Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in JR Personal Injury Suit WASHINGTON TRUST: Haines Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ingram Seeks to Certify Car Owners Class WEBSTER UNIVERSITY: McClanahan Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19 WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Releases Supersedeas Bond in Petrone YOUNG LIVING: Appeals Order in O'Shaughnessy Suit to 5th Circuit ********* 12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Seeks Review of Decision in Hines Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Nathan Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation, in the Texas District Court, Newton County. The appellate case is captioned as Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation v. Nathan Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 09-19-00454-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth Court of Appeals. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, David Barron, writing for Houston Chronicle, reported that a state district judge in Newton County has approved class action status for a lawsuit filed by former Texas A&M students against the fund-raising 12th Man Foundation, the latest development in a long-running dispute over the university's seating policies at remodeled, expanded Kyle Field. The decision by State District Judge Delinda Gibbs Walker, in a 52-page opinion, certified a class of several hundred longtime A&M endowed donors to join as plaintiffs in a 2017 lawsuit filed by Nathan Hines of Newton, who says the foundation deprived him and others of ticketing and parking rights promised when they made endowment agreements with the 12th Man Foundation in the 1980s and '90s. At issue could be up to 400 or more endowment agreements that could involve as many as a thousand seats at Kyle Field, which was expanded to 102,733 seats as part of a $480 million project completed in 2015. Gibbs Walker, who presided over a Sept. 26 hearing on the request for class action certification, said the A&M donors meet each of the requirements set down by state law for class certification. The class, the judge said, would include "all owners and beneficiaries of a Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation Permanently Endowed Scholarship Program Agreement who have not settled and released their claim (against the foundation) for the imposition of additional charges or fees for home and away football game seating benefits and home football parking benefits, and/or for the (diminishment) of those benefits." Mr. Hines' lawsuit, initially filed in December 2017, alleges breach of contract and other violations by the foundation and its directors. The Plaintiffs seeks either to have what they believe are their proper seat and parking locations at Kyle Field restored or, as an alternative, damages, costs and fees in excess of a million dollars. Mr. Hines, a 1980 A&M graduate, is among several dozen donors who filed lawsuits against the foundation since 2011 over seating and/or parking issues as A&M has expanded Kyle Field and moved from the Big 12 into the Southeastern Conference. The endowments, attorneys claim, were critical factors for a financially challenged A&M athletic department in the 1980s and '90s. As the department's finances have improved, however, the 12th Man Foundation has steadily moved to renege on its promises to longtime donors, attorneys claim.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Nathan Hines is represented by: Blair A. Bisbey, Esq. SEALE, STOVER & BISBEY 950 N. Wheeler St. Jasper, TX 75951 Telephone: 409-384-3463 Facsimile: 409-384-3017 - and - Claude M. McQuarrie III, Esq. 20887 Sweetglen Dr. Porter, TX 77365-6391 - and - Aaron Reitz, Esq. CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC 4611 Bee Cave Road, Suite 306B Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-639-7177 E-mail: areitz@clevelandterrazas.com - and - William J. Cobb III, Esq. COBB & COUNSEL PLLC 14101 W Highway 290, Suite 400A Austin, TX 78737 Telephone: 512-693-7570 E-mail: bill@cobbxcounsel.com Defendant-Appellant Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation is represented by: Layne E. Kruse, Esq. Julie Goodrich Harrison, Esq. Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Fulbright Tower, Suite 5100 1301 McKinney Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone: 713 651 5194 E-mail: layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com julie.harrison@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Randall S. Richardson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL S. RICHARDSON PLLC 3701 Kirby Dr., Suite 760 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: 713-960-2919 Facsimile: 832-616-5576 - and - Lindsey B. Whisenhant, Esq. LINDSEY B. WHISENHANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LPPC 130 S. Charlton Street Woodville, TX 75979 Telephone: 409-200-2118 Toll-Free: 800-397-4989 Facsimile: 409-283-8078 AB STAFFING: Misclassifies Employees, Coffey Claims --------------------------------------------------- ROBERT COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AB STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01352-JJT (D. Ariz., July 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Recruiter from approximately January 2019 to April 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. However, because Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees, Defendant paid them their salary without overtime compensation throughout their employment with Defendant. AB Staffing Solution, LLC is an employment and staffing company operating throughout the U,S, and intentionally, including in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tel: (602) 328-0262 Fax: (602) 926-1479 Email: srandall@randallslaw.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Email: cfitz@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Underpays Employees, Ugale Claims ----------------------------------------------------- JANET UGALI, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 8, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged pattern and practice of wage abuse against their employees in violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiff was jointly and severally employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly-paid from in or about January 2018 to May 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other class members worked over 8 hours in a day and/or over 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. However, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other class members for all the hours they worked in excess of 40. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and other class members timely and complete meal and rest periods, and failed to pay them one additional hour of pay when a meal and rest periods were missed. Allen Distribution, LP provides logistics services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Tel: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7502 Website: http://justicelawcorp.com/attorneys/ ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Faces Slomanski FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Collection Agencies Inc. The case is captioned as John Slomanski and Margaret Brusewitz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alliance Collection Agencies Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00956-WED (E.D. Wis., June 25, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc., was founded in 1990. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP 3620 E Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com ALLSTATE MEDICAL: Reaches Deal on PIP Coverage Under Auto Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, announced a settlement of a lawsuit alleging that Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass Indemnity Company, Encompass Floridian Insurance Company, and Encompass Floridian Indemnity Company ("Defendant Insurers") have not complied with certain policies of insurance issued by Defendant Insurers and with Florida law regarding the payment of personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits under policies issued with a PIP deductible. The parties have agreed to settle the case, and the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida ("the Court") has certified a Settlement Class. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may be entitled to receive the benefits of the Settlement and will be bound by the release and other provisions of the Settlement if it is approved by the Court. Who is Included in the Class? You may be entitled to benefits if you are a person or entity who is an "EIP Class Member" or "Provider Class Member" who has not been previously compensated. These include persons who were or are: (i) an Eligible Injured Person or an assignee of an Eligible Injured Person under a Defendant Insurer Florida Auto Policy; (ii) where the Eligible Injured Person was injured in an automobile accident covered by the PIP coverage of a Defendant Insurer Florida Auto Policy which was governed by Florida law and the Florida PIP statute; (iii) where the PIP coverage for such Eligible Injured Person was subject to a PIP deductible; and (iv) where payment of PIP benefits was calculated by applying the PIP deductible, or portion thereof, to a statutorily authorized limitation amount as opposed to the full amount billed for medical services rendered to the Eligible Injured person. For more information regarding who is excluded from the Class, please visit www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com. How Do You Receive a Payment? Under the Settlement, the Defendant Insurers have agreed to pay a Settlement Payment to Class Members who submit a fully completed and signed Claim Form. In order to receive a Settlement Payment, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 13, 2020. If you do not submit a Claim Form you will not be entitled to receive any Settlement Payment. For more information on submitting a Claim Form, visit www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com. What Are My Other Options? If you wish to opt out or exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than July 28, 2020. If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will not be entitled to receive any payment or benefits from the Settlement, your claims against the Defendant Insurers will not be released, and you will be free to separately pursue any claims you believe you may have. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may object to the proposed Settlement or intervene in the Action for the purpose of contesting the proposed Settlement. The deadline to file the written notice of intent to object and/or intervene is August 3, 2020. More information on how to exclude yourself or object to the Settlement can be found at the Settlement Website. The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing on September 14, 2020, to determine: (a) the reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the Settlement; (b) whether Final Judgment should be entered; and (c) to approve the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid directly to Class Counsel and the amount of the incentive award to the Class Representative. The hearing may be postponed or changed to a different date or time or location without notice. You or your own lawyer, if you have one, are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense, but you are not required to attend. For more information, please contact: The Settlement Administrator Phone: 1-888-279-7565 E-mail: info@AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com Web site: http://www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com/ [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Texas Court Dismisses Hoeffert's Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, has dismissed Plaintiff's claims in the case captioned JOHN E. HOEFERT, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00466-P. (N.D. Tex.). In September 2017, Hoefert, as an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit against American Airlines, an international air carrier, in the District Court of Arizona. Hoefert, a pilot, alleged that American violated two provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by failing to provide Hoefert and other pilots on military absences with the most favorable sick-time accrual, vacation-time accrual, and operations-based bonus payments. From July 2012 through December 2018, approximately 1,623 American pilots took military leave. American filed a motion to transfer, and on June 7, 2018, the case was transferred to the Texas District Court. In October 2018, Hoefert filed a Motion for Class Certification in which he sought to certify the following four classes: (1) Bonus Class; (2) US Airways, Inc. Sick Time Accrual Class; (3) Post-Merger Sick Time Accrual Class; and (4) Post-Merger Vacation Time Accrual Class. In August 2019, Hoefert filed a motion for partial summary judgment and American filed a motion for summary judgment. The Texas Court now considers these motions. The Court notes that while the USERRA was intended to benefit and protect service members, it was not intended to provide service member employees with more favorable treatment than non-service member employees. On further review, the Court finds that sick-time accrual, vacation-time accrual, and bonus payments are not seniority-based benefits. The Court note that based on language of applicable CBAs, the real nature of sick-time accrual at issue is for actual work performed rather than a reward for length of service. Furthermore, the disputed vacation days accrue not to incentivize long-term employment, but rather to compensate and provide a respite from American's pilots' past efforts. The Court also notes that the bonus payments are non-seniority-based benefits because they are tied to actually performing services on behalf of American. Having concluded that the three benefits that Hoefert claims were withheld in violation of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4316(a) are non-seniority benefits and thus are not protected by Section 4316(a), the Court grants summary judgment on this claim. Hoefert alternatively asserts that if the original benefits pointed out are not seniority-based, American violated Section 4316(b) of USERRA by not providing Hoefert with sick accrual, vacation accrual, and monthly operations-based bonuses while on military leave, when American did provide such benefits to pilots on comparable leaves of absences. According to Hoeffert, these comparable leaves of absence are for jury duty, union service ("Duty with Association"), sickness, Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") absence, and vacation. On review, the Court opines that: -- based on purpose and duration, military absences and sick absences are not comparable, and as such Hoefert is not entitled to benefits on military leave that other pilots may accrue while on sick leave; -- Hoefert is not entitled to benefits that may accrue to other pilots on leave for Duty with the Association when he is on military leave; -- Hoefert is not entitled to benefits while on military leave that may accrue to American pilots absent while on leave for jury duty; -- Hoefert is not entitled to the benefits while he is absent for military service that pilots absent for vacation may accrue; and -- Hoefert is not entitled to the same benefits to pilots absent for family medical leave when he is absent for military service. Having concluded that none of the other benefits Hoefert claims he was deprived of in violation of the USERRA concerned comparable absences, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on Hoefert's 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4316(b) claim. In sum, the Court finds that Hoefert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be and is hereby denied and that American's Motion for Summary Judgment should be and is hereby granted. The Court dismisses Hoefert's claims with prejudice. Accordingly, Hoefert's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Texas District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r8xaur8 from Leagle.com. John E Hoefert, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Lawler - blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - Pilot Law, P.C., Charles Billy , Crystal Lee Matter , Stonebarger Law APC, 101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100, Folsom, CA 95630-4726, Gene Joseph Stonebarger - gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - Stonebarger Law APC, Jonathan T. Suder , Friedman Suder & Cooke PC,Tindall Square Warehouse No.1, 604 East Fourth Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 & Richard David Lambert , Stonebarger Law APC, 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145, Folsom, CA 95630 American Airlines Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Robertson - mrobertson@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Dee J. Kelly, Jr. - dee.kelly.2@kellyhart.com - Kelly Hart & Hallman, Lars L. Berg - lars.berg@kellyhart.com , Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Sloane Ackerman - sackerman@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Stephanie Drotar - sdrotar@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Tristan Morales - tmorales@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers, pro hac vice. AMERICAN GEZHI-MART: Untimely Pays Wages and Goods, Cheung Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND CHEUNG, an individual, et al. v. AMERICAN GEZHI-MART CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, and YKC MARKETING INC., a California corporation, ZHAOZHONG ZHOU, an individual, LOHAS FRESH MART ALHAMBRA, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, JBROS INVESTMENT, LLC, a California limited liability corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24520 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to timely pay wages and goods to the Plaintiffs. The Employee Plaintiffs include RAYMOND CHEUNG, an individual, CUNHUI CHEN, an individual, DONG LU, an individual, CHANG LIU, an individual, HSIUCHEN CHEUNGLEE, an individual, LISA CHANG, an individual, VICTOR LIU, an individual, DESHENG CHEN, an individual, SHIHAN SONG, an individual, TIANYU ZHANG, an individual, GUODONG CHEN, an individual, WENWEN XU, an individual, TUN BEN LIM, an individual, HE CHEN, an individual, XIAOFANG CHEN, an individual, JINRU QIU, an individual, The Vendor Plaintiffs include PANDA TRADING & MANUFACTURING, INC., a California corporation, CHUN YUEN TRADING CO., (USA), INC., a California corporation, SUFOO LIFE, INC., a California corporation. GW FOOD USA, INC., a California corporation. TAK SHING HONG, INC., a California corporation, JUN HAN, an individual, BIG GREEN (USA), INC., a California corporation, JJWV MARKETING CORPORATION, a California corporation, FORTUNATE TRADERS, a California corporation, AA1218 USA, INC., a California corporation, EVERGREEN PROVISIONS, INC., a California corporation, NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES LTD. a California corporation, ILLI MARKETING, INC., a California corporation, KUIYI INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation, TIFFANY FOOD CORP., a New York corporation, JIMEI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, CHUNWEI, INC., a California corporation, KONG ENTERPRISES. INC DBA BIGTREE WHOLESALE & IMPORTS, a Texas corporation, MAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC., a California corporation, and E-KEN TELECOM, INC., a California corporation. AMERICAN GEZHI-MART CORPORATION; YK.C MARKETING INC.; LOHAS FRESH MART ALHAMBRA, LLC; and JBROS INVESTMENT, LLC, are businesses controlled by Zhaozhou Zhou. The Defendants are in variety stores business. Prior to January 1, 2020, Zhaozhou Zhou knew that Lohas Fresh Mart Alhambra LLC would be winding down and that he would be transferring assets of Lohas Fresh Mart so that no funds would be available in Lohas Fresh Mart to pay its obligations, including its debts to suppliers, such as the Vendor Plaintiffs and Employee Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that when Zhaozhou Zhou ordered goods from the Vendor defendants, Zhaozhou zhou knew that he would not pay them for the goods once the operations of Lohas Fresh Mart. Zhaozhou Zhou concealed his intentions from the Vendor Plaintiffs and the Employee Plaintiffs, who then continued to provide goods and labor without knowing that they would not be paid for the respective goods and/or labor that each Plaintiff provided. The Employee Plaintiffs provided labor for the Defendants. Despite their respective obligations to pay wages when due, the Defendants, as the employer for each of the Employee Plaintiffs, failed to pay the wages due and owing. The Vendor Plaintiffs relied on Zhaozhou Zhou's statements that he would pay for the goods and services provided by the Plaintiffs at the relevant times, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs' reliance was reasonable because Lohas Fresh Mart had a history of paying its obligations as required. As the result of the fraud and deceit of Zhaozhou Zhou, each of the Vendor Plaintiffs and the Employee Plaintiffs has suffered damages. The Plaintiffs sue over the Defendants' fraudulent, willful and malicious conduct intended to deprive them of their legal rights and property, which entitles each of them to an award of punitive and exemplary damages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. DesJardins, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC. 210 W. Birch Street, Suite 202 Brea, CA 92821 Telephone: (714) 265-2100 Facsimile: (714) 494-8215 E-mail: md@desjardinslaw.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in Donelson Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Mark Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01023-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Kansas City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was filed on December 31, 2018. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., offers brokerage, investment and financial advisory services. The Company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., operates as a subsidiary of AMPF Holding Corporation. The appellate case is captioned as Mark Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3691, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Mark Donelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James F.B. Daniels, Esq. MCDOWELL RICE SMITH & BUCHANAN PC 350 The Skelly Building 605 W. 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64112-0000 Telephone: 816-221-5400 E-mail: jdaniels@mcdowellrice.com Defendants-Appellants Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., James Cracchiolo, Kelli Hunter Petruzillo, Neal Maglaque and Patrick Hugh O'Connell are represented by: Thomas J. Butler, Esq. Mark David Foley, Jr., Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE 1901 Sixth Avenue, N., Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-254-1029 E-mail: tbutler@maynardcooper.com - and - Carly D. Duvall, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106-2140 Telephone: 816-474-8100 E-mail: cduvall@spencerfane.com ANTHEM INC: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Savett Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Adam Savett filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Adam Savett v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00274, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit wants Anthem to cease placing prerecorded telephone calls to consumers nationwide, as well as an award of statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Anthem is a health insurance company that placed telephone calls featuring a prerecorded voice to consumers' residential telephone lines throughout the nation. Anthem made these calls to consumers' phones indefinitely regardless of whether the phone numbers had been reassigned to new subscribers and, thus, no longer belonged to the same consumers, who enrolled in the first place. The appellate case is captioned as Adam Savett v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 19-4188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM SAVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. Daniel Richard Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-241-8172 E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Michael W. Ovca, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-561-4106 E-mail: movca@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com Defendant-Appellee ANTHEM, INC., is represented by: Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq. Alan D. Wingfield, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804-697-1480 E-mail: virginia.flynn@troutman.com alan.wingfield@troutman.com - and - Chad R. Fuller, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: 858-509-6000 E-mail: chad.fuller@troutman.com - and - Natalia Steele, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 200 Public Square, Suite 1400 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-479-6100 E-mail: nsteele@vorys.com APL LOGISTICS: Coleman Wins Preliminary Nod of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned RONALD COLEMAN, an individual v. APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:19-CV-01144-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.). The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement based on the terms set forth in the executed Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release. The Court finds that the Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing and Final Approval by this Court. This Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only: All current and former hourly employees of APL Logistics Warehouse Management Services, Inc. who worked in the State of California and were paid and whose wage statements included Differential Pay or Premium Pay at any time from June 21, 2018 through July 12, 2019. The Court provisionally appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints Ronald Coleman as representative of the Class, and Mayall Hurley P.C. as Class Counsel. The Court finds both as to form and content, the Notice of Class Action Settlement comports with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all Constitutional requirements, including those of due process. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice and related documents to the Class Members by First-Class U.S. Mail, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement and this Order. The Court preliminarily approves the proposed procedure for requesting exclusion from the Settlement. Any Class Member may choose to be excluded from the Settlement as provided in the Notice and set forth in the Settlement. Any such person, who chooses to be excluded from, and opt out of the Settlement will not be entitled to any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the Settlement or have any right to object to, appeal from, or comment thereon. Class Members who have not submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement and the contemplated judgment to be entered based thereon. A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on September 15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. (Pacific Time). All briefs and materials in support of the Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Entering of and Judgment and Application or Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs shall be filed with the Court on or before August 25, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybaqwcu7 from Leagle.com ROBERT J. WASSERMAN--rwasserman@mayallaw.com; WILLIAM J. GORHAM--wgorham@mayallaw.com; NICHOLAS F. SCARDIGLI--nscardigli@mayallaw.com; JOHN P. BRISCOE--jbriscoe@mayallaw.com; RACHAEL ALLGAIER--rallgaier@mayallaw.com, in Stockton, California, represent Plaintiff Ronald Coleman and the Putative Class. ARRIS INT'L: Knowles Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Greg Knowles, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled IN RE ARRIS CABLE MODEM CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No. 5:17-cv-01834-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The case is a class action brought by purchasers of certain cable modems manufactured by Defendant ARRIS International Limited. The consolidated amended class action complaint included claims under California law and eighteen claims under the laws of other states. The four California causes of action were brought on behalf of the named California Plaintiffs and the California Subclass under (1) the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) (2) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (3) the False Advertising Law (FAL) and (4) the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class. The appellate case is captioned as Greg Knowles, et al. v. ARRIS International Plc, Case No. 19-17468, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GREG KNOWLES and BRIAN ALEXANDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Willem Jonckheer, Esq. Dustin Schubert, Esq. Noah Schubert, Esq. Robert C. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-788-4220 E-mail: wjonckheer@sjk.law dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com nschubert@sjk.law rschubert@sjk.law Defendant-Appellee ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC is represented by: Nancy Louise Stagg, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 11225 El Camino Real, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: 858-350-6156 E-mail: nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com AUTOZONE STORES: Suit Mooted When Class Rep. Settles, 9th Cir. Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Assia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., wrote on The National Law Review an article titled "Class Action Mooted When Class Representative Settles, Ninth Circuit Rules". On June 3, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a wage and hour class action on the grounds that once the class representative plaintiff settled his individual claims and no longer had any financial stake in the litigation's outcome, the entire litigation was moot. In Brady v. AutoZone Stores, Inc. and Autozoners, LLC, Plaintiff Michael Brady brought a class action suit against AutoZone Stores, Inc. and Autozoners LLC for allegedly failing to provide its nonexempt employees with meal breaks in accordance with Washington state law. After several years of litigation, Brady settled his individual claims and simultaneously waived any right to recover attorney's fees and costs. Even though Brady settled his individual claims, the settlement agreement included a provision explicitly stating that Brady did not intend to settle or waive his class claims. Upon notice of the settlement the district court entered final judgment against Brady on the grounds that his class claims were now moot, despite the attempt to carve out his class claims. Brady appealed, but the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the class. In its holding, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the dismissal rested on the fact that Brady no longer maintained any financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. The Court distinguished its holding in Brady from Narouz v. Charter Communications. In Narouz the 9th Circuit found that the plaintiff still held a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation when he/she did not waive a right to recover attorney's fees and costs. Because the class representative still maintained some financial stake, the Court could not dismiss the action as moot. The Brady Court further explained that its decision was consistent with prior Ninth Circuit decisions in Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell and Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co., Inc. In Evon, plaintiff settled her individual claims without any mention to her class claims - thus rendering her class claims moot. Campion stands for the proposition that an express carve out of class claims is still not enough to retain a financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. Taken together, the Court found that Brady relinquished any right to recovery, and his claims were correspondingly moot. Notably, the Court found that the mere potential of an enhancement award is not sufficient to create a concrete financial stake that can save a class action. In short, "we hold that when a class representative voluntarily settles his individual claims, he must do more than expressly leave class claims unresolved to avoid mootness." In light of the 9th Circuit holding in Brady, employers facing wage and hour class actions in the Ninth Circuit should consult with legal counsel if settling the class representatives' individual claims, including a waiver of further right to recover, makes sense for the litigants' goals and objectives. [GN] BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Manasa Thimmegowda filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00199-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-36090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3, 2020, Defendants Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MANASA THIMMEGOWDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com atievsky@edelson.com - and - Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415-638-9660 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com - and - Janie Shiel, Esq. 8368 E Cheryl Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: 480-991-7109 - and - Janissa A. Strabuk , Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com Defendants-Appellees BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada corporation; ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; and CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 650-632-4715 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com - and - Gary Rubman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: 202-662-5465 E-mail: grubman@cov.com - and - Matthew Verdin, Esq. David Samuel Watnick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: 415-583-3292 E-mail: mverdin@cov.com dwatnick@cov.com - and - Mark Parris, Esq. Paul Rugani, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Telephone: 206-839-4320 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com prugani@orrick.com BL 62 WEST: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Ayala Claims ------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BL 62 WEST 9TH ST, LLC d/b/a CASA APICII, BL 62 WEST 9TH MANAGEMENT, LLC, APICII, LLC, APICII ADVISORS, LLC, APICII MANAGEMENT, LLC, THOMAS A DILLON, and BERNARD SCHWARTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05233 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Hospitality Industry Wage Order, and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Casa Apicii from approximately July 2016 until July 2018 to work in the kitchen where he prepared food. The complaint asserts these claims: -- Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime premium from February 2017 until July 2018 even though he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week; -- The wage statements provided by Defendants did not accurately reflect Plaintiff's overtime rate or the number of overtime hours worked; and -- Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff spread of hours. Thomas A. Dillon has operational control over Defendant Casa Apicii. Bernard Schwartz is one of the founders of Casa Apicii. Corporate Defendants BL 62 West 9th St, LLC d/b/a Casa Apicii, BL 62 West 9th Management, LLC, Apicii, LLC, Apicii Advisors, LLC, and Apicii Management, LLC own and operate a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 E. Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 824-0200 Email: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-81076-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged illegal telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous calls from Defendant's Caller ID numbers (216) 279-5134 or (419) 458-5578 -- one on May 26, 2020, six calls on May 27, 2020, and two calls on June 2, 2020 -- to his residential telephone number of (614) XXX-1037. Allegedly, Defendant uses telemarketing to promote their services by illegally calling residential numbers listed on the national Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff affirms that he never consented to receive Defendant's calls, which caused him harm and injury. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. provides travel services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Emails: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com BROOKLYN FARE: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC and Brooklyn Fare Kitchen Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05193 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC (doing business as BROOKLYN FARE) is licensed liquor authority in the county of NEW YORK, licensed by New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BUREAU OF PRISONS: Certification of Rule 23 Class Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN KEVIN MOORE, ET. AL, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN F.J. BOWERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00123-GMG-RWT (N.D.W.Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting certification for class action pursuant to the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. appointing counsel for himself as well as those "similarly situated" as inmates held in Federal Correctional Institution in Morgantown. The Plaintiff says class certification would allow the Court to consider the underlying claim that the United States Bureau of Prisons is intentionally violating the civil rights of every inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution located in Morgantown, West Virginia, a facility under the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals.[CC] CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Abdullah Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned HAKIM ABDULLAH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. M. BLAQUIERE, Officer, Camden County Sheriff Department, individual personal capacity, MICHAEL H.L. ROBERSON, SR., individual personal capacity, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-14509 (11th Cir.). Hakim Abdullah, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court's dismissal without prejudice of his complaint. He only argues that the District Court erred because it allowed the Magistrate Judge to act beyond his jurisdiction in granting Defendant Blaquiere's motion to reopen and extend the time to file an answer, thereby, denying Abdullah an entry of default and eventual default judgment against Blaquiere. Abdullah contends that the Magistrate Judge's act violated Abdullah's due process rights and rendered the District Court's dismissal order void. The District Court may, for good cause, extend the time to perform an act: (1) with or without motion or notice, if a request is made before the time expires or (2) on motion after the time expires if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. If a defendant fails to file an answer or responsive motion "and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default." Then, if the Plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain, the clerk upon motion must enter a default judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been defaulted. If the Plaintiff's claim is not for a sum certain, the Plaintiff must move the Court for a default judgment. "The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b)." The Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order extending the time for Blaquiere to file an answer. The rules of civil procedure grant the authority to extend an already expired deadline to answer upon a motion asserting excusable neglect. Such a motion to extend time, filed before entry of a default or a default judgment, is a non-dispositive pretrial motion that a magistrate judge may decide. Thus, the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order, and Abdullah's challenge to the judgment against him is unavailing. AFFIRMED. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9rtrqrf from Leagle.com CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation & Plc ("Carnival" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCL; CUK) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Carnival securities between January 28, 2020 through May 1, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ccl. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ccl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Carnival you have until July 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay Sues Over Passengers' Exposure to COVID-19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARD C. LINDSAY and CARL E.W. ZEHNER v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC., HOLLAND AMERICA LINE-U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00982-TLF (W.D. Wash., June 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs and more than 1,000 similarly-situated passengers, who sailed on the cruise aboard the MS ZAANDAM, which boarded on March 7, 2020, and embarked on March 8, 2020, originating in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Defendants represent that they are committed to "the health, safety, and security" of their passengers and promote their business as one that "always strives to be free of injuries, illness and loss." However, in early February 2020, the Defendants became aware of an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the cruise ship the Diamond Princess, which is operated by CARNIVAL and its subsidiary Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. The outbreak originated on the Diamond Princess while the vessel was docked in Yokohama, Japan. Ten cases were originally diagnosed, and that number rapidly escalated to over 700 cases--over one-fifth of the passengers onboard. Investigative reporting about the Diamond Princess alleges that well after CARNIVAL became aware of the first case aboard the ship, the Defendants worked to "keep the fun going" by "encouraging guests to mingle," the Plaintiffs contend. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, the Plaintiffs say they were exposed to and suffered from COVID-19 while onboard the MS ZAANDAM and, as a direct result of the Defendants' negligence, continues to suffer from the effects of this illness. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global health emergency. In early February 2020, experts in the European Union, led by epidemiologist Dr. Christou Hadjichristodoulou, released guidelines for the cruise industry that included an outline of the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks aboard cruise ships and recommended response protocols. Specifically, the guidelines directed that, in the event of a COVID-19 case, close contacts of the case should be quarantined in their cabin or on shore, and "casual contacts" should be disembarked. The Plaintiffs are passengers of MS ZAANDAM. Carnival Corporation is a British-American cruise operator, currently the world's largest travel leisure company, with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands. Holland America Line is a British–American-owned cruise line, a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA Telephone: 206 682 5600 Facsimile: 206.682.2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com jselbin@lchb.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Madeline M. Gomez, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: 615 313 9000 Facsimile: 615 313 9965 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com mgomez@lchb.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615 244 2202 Facsimile: 615 252 3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com CHHAYA NEWS: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Sexual Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA LUGO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. CHHAYA NEWS INC d/b/a FRESH JUICE BAR, NEWS AT 31, INC. d/b/a ASTORIA SMOKE SHOP, A&P LOTTERY STORE INC. d/b/a JAKS CORNER, MINAKSHI PATEL and ASHOK PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05286 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a juice maker for Defendants' Fresh Juice Bar on or about June 25, 2019 and was terminated on or about August 1, 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for a total of 79.5 hours per week throughout her employment but she was paid by Defendants at a straight-time rate only regardless of how many hours she worked each workweek, thereby failing to pay him proper overtime compensation at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to: -- provide proper wage statements for each payment period; -- accurately reflect the number of hours worked and their proper compensation; and -- provide wage notices at hiring and at dates of all wage changes thereafter. Moreover, Plaintiff was subject to regular sexual harassment from her manager throughout her employment with Defendants. Minakshi Patel and Ashok Patel own and operate the Stores. Chhaya News Inc d/b/a Fresh Juice Bar, News At 31, Inc. d/b/a Astoria Smoke Shop, and A&P Lottery Store Inc d/b/a Kaks Corner are food convenience establishments, collectively known as the "Stores". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eight Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 Emails: cklee@leelitigation.com CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Appeals Order in Consumer Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Cheryl Kater and Suzie Kelly filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Cheryl Kater, et al. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00612-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Cheryl Kater, et al. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-36091, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3, 2020, Defendants Churchill Downs, Inc., and Big Fish Games, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is titled as Cheryl Kater, et al. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has joined Big Fish Games in renewing a motion to compel arbitration in the Washington District Court as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Suzie Kelly. Big Fish Games also renewed its motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff Cheryl Kater in the Washington District Court. This purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed on April 17, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games, Inc. ("Big Fish Games") violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and SUZIE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com atievsky@edelson.com - and - Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415-638-9660 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com - and - Janie Shiel, Esq. 8368 E Cheryl Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: 480-991-7109 - and - Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com Defendants-Appellees CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, and BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation, are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 650-632-4715 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com - and - Gary Rubman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: 202-662-5465 E-mail: grubman@cov.com - and - Matthew Verdin, Esq. David Samuel Watnick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: 415-583-3292 E-mail: mverdin@cov.com dwatnick@cov.com - and - Mark Parris, Esq. Paul Rugani, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Telephone: 206-839-4320 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com prugani@orrick.com CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Dillon, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled William Dillon, et al. v. Clackamas County, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00820-YY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. The appellate case is captioned as William Dillon, et al. v. Clackamas County, et al., Case No. 19-36084, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 29, 2020, Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Vincent Graue, David Michael Hodges, and Albert Love filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit. The Plaintiffs, former inmates at Clackamas County Jail ("CCJ"), bring this class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Plaintiffs' state statutory and federal constitutional rights arising from group strip searches at CCJ.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT VINCENT GRAUE, DAVID MICHAEL HODGES and ALBERT LOVE, Individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN 4711 SW Huber Street, Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 Telephone: (503) 473-8787 E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com Defendants-Appellees CLACKAMAS COUNTY and CRAIG ROBERTS, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff, are represented by: Stephen L. Madkour, Esq. Shawn A. Lillegren, Esq. CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045 Telephone: (503) 742-5395 E-mail: smadkour@clackamas.us slillegren@clackamas.us COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Pinkhasov Files FDCPA Suit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Yuriy Pinkhasov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22784-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 Garden CIty Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Faces Feist FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commercial Acceptance Company. The case is captioned as LINDSEY FEIST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS v. COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03061-GEKP (E.D. Pa., June 24, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Commercial Acceptance is a financial services company based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com COMPASS GROUP: Remand of Bryant BIPA Suit to State Court Flipped ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's order remanding a BIPA lawsuit against Compass Group USA to state court and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate case is CHRISTINE BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1443 (7th Cir.). Section 15(b) of the Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") regulates the collection, use, and retention of a person's biometric identifiers or information. It requires collectors of this material to obtain the written informed consent of any person whose data is acquired. The regime is designed to protect consumers against the threat of irreparable privacy harms, identity theft, and other economic injuries arising from the increasing use of biometric identifiers and information by private entities. As a matter of state law, anyone "aggrieved" by a violation of the disclosure and informed consent obligations is entitled to bring a private action against the alleged offender. Christine Bryant worked for a call center in Illinois. As a convenience for its employees, the center had a workplace cafeteria, in which it had installed Smart Market vending machines owned and operated by Compass. The machines did not accept cash; instead, a user had to establish an account using her fingerprint. Accordingly, during her orientation Bryant and her coworkers were instructed by their employer to scan their fingerprints into the Smart Market system and establish a payment link to create user accounts. Once their accounts were active, employees could purchase items and add money to their balance using just their fingerprints. Their fingerprints are "biometric identifiers" within the meaning of the Act. In violation of section 15(a) of BIPA, Compass never made publicly available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric identifiers and information it was collecting and storing. In addition, in violation of section 15(b), Compass never: (1) informed Bryant in writing that her biometric identifier (fingerprint) was being collected or stored, (2) informed Bryant in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which her fingerprint was being collected, stored, and used, or (3) obtained Bryant's written release to collect, store, and use her fingerprint. Bryant does not assert that she did not know that her fingerprint was being collected and stored, nor why it was happening. She voluntarily created a user account for the Smart Market vending machines and regularly made use of the fingerprint scanner to purchase items from the machines. She contends simply that Compass' failure to make the requisite disclosures denied her the ability to give informed written consent as required by section 15(b). Compass' failure to comply with the Act resulted, both for her and others similarly situated, in the loss of the right to control their biometric identifiers and information. Seeking redress for that invasion of her personal data, on Aug. 13, 2019, Bryant brought a putative class action against Compass in the Circuit Court of Cook County, pursuant to BIPA's provision providing a private right of action in state court to persons "aggrieved" by a violation of the statute. Bryant seeks to represent a class of Illinois citizens who used Compass' Smart Market biometricenabled vending machines after August 2014. She alleges that Compass violated her and class members' statutory rights under BIPA when it collected users' fingerprints without first making the required written disclosures about use and retention and without written authorization. For purposes of the standing issue before the Court, the Seventh Circuit accepts Bryant's allegations as true. Compass removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") on the basis of diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Compass is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in North Carolina; Bryant is a citizen of Illinois. It is enough to assure the minimal diversity required by CAFA. The requisite amount in controversy is also secure: claims of individual class members are aggregated for purposes of CAFA, and in the case, BIPA authorizes statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Compass asserts, and Bryant does not contest, that the alleged class has at least 1,000 members. Bryant moved to remand the action to the state court, claiming that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because she lacked the concrete injury-in-fact necessary to satisfy the federal requirement for Article III standing. The district court found that Compass's alleged violations of sections 15(a) and (b) were bare procedural violations that caused no concrete harm to Bryant; accordingly, it remanded the action to the state court. Compass petitioned the Court for permission to appeal the remand order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c); on March 13, 2020, the Court accepted the appeal. The question now before the Seventh Circuit is whether, for federal-court purposes, such a person has suffered the kind of injury-in-fact that supports Article III standing. The Seventh Circuit concludes that a failure to follow section 15(b) of the law leads to an invasion of personal rights that is both concrete and particularized. The Seventh Circuit finds that the text of the statute demonstrates that its purpose is to ensure that consumers understand, before providing their biometric data, how that information will be used, who will have access to it, and for how long it will be retained. The judgment of Illinois' General Assembly is that the sensitivity of biometric information and the risk of identity theft or other privacy or economic harm that may result from its dissemination, necessitates that people be given the opportunity to make informed choices about to whom and for what purpose they will relinquish control of that information. Compass' failure to abide by the requirements of section 15(b) before it collected Smart Market users' fingerprints denied Bryant and others like her the opportunity to consider whether the terms of that collection and usage were acceptable given the attendant risks. It was not a failure to satisfy a purely procedural requirement. Rather, Compass withheld substantive information to which Bryant was entitled and thereby deprived her of the ability to give the informed consent section 15(b) mandates. Equipped with the missing information, she may have chosen not to use the vending machines and instead brought her own lunch or snacks. Or she may have opted for the convenience of the machines. She did not realize that there was a choice to be made and what the costs and benefits were for each option. The deprivation is a concrete injury-in-fact that is particularized to Bryant. Bryant thus meets the requirements for Article III standing on her section 15(b) claim. Finally, the Seventh Circuit finds that Bryant did not suffer a concrete and particularized injury as a result of Compass's violation of section 15(a). She therefore lacks standing under Article III to pursue that claim in federal court. As she noted earlier, the Court has no authority and no occasion to address her state-court standing to bring the claim. Recognizing the privacy and economic risks involved in the wide use of biometric information, the Illinois General Assembly mandated in section 15(b) of BIPA that private entities make certain disclosures and receive informed consent from consumers before obtaining such information. As alleged, Compass did not make the requisite disclosures to Bryant or obtain her informed written consent before collecting her fingerprints. By failing to do so, Compass inflicted the concrete injury BIPA intended to protect against, i.e. a consumer's loss of the power and ability to make informed decisions about the collection, storage, and use of her biometric information. That injury satisfies the requirements for Article III standing, and so Bryant's claim under section 15(b) may proceed in federal court. The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the judgment of the district court remanding the action to the Circuit Court of Cook County, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's May 5, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Z3nPD5 from Leagle.com. CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Behboudi Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMIR BEHBOUDI, an individual, for himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC -20-585042 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal periods, to provide rest breaks, and to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiffs each worked as pharmacists for CVS. CVS classified them as non-exempt employees and paid them hourly, as California law requires. But, in violation of the Labor Code, CVS required the Plaintiffs to stay logged into CVS's pharmacy software, respond to their supervisor's inquiries, and provide customer service during their meal and rest breaks, says the complaint. CVS, thus, systematically failed to provide pharmacists with breaks and owes the Plaintiffs unpaid wages, penalties, interests, and their attorneys' fees for failing to provide meal and rest breaks, Mr. Behboudi contends. CVS Pharmacy is an American retail corporation. Owned by CVS Health, it is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray E. Gallo, Esq. GALLO LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA Telephone: 415 257 8800 E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law DEFENSE TAX: Chen Wang Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal., Filed February 6, 2020), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order on August 17, 2020, granting his motion for class certification. Defense Tax Group is a tax relief company based in Los Angeles, CA. The company was founded in 2013 and offers tax relief services to individuals and businesses in 50 states (and Washington, DC).[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Parker, Esq. M.R. PARKER LAW, APC 6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 Telephone: (818) 334-5711 Facsimile: (818) 394-6448 E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com DHR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hartman Suit in California Super. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHR International Inc., et al. The case is captioned as CAROL HARTMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER CURRENT AND FORMER SIMILARLY-SITUATED AND AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. DHR INTERNATIONAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA; KEITH GIARMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; GEOFFREY HOFFMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE; Case No. CGC20585164 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 26, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case management conference will be held on Nov. 25, 2020 in Civic Center Courthouse, Room 610. DHR is a privately held executive search solutions provider with 50 wholly-owned offices around the world (including North and South America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East). DHR offers senior-level executive search, management assessment and succession planning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union St. San Francisco, CA 94123-4507 Telephone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com DIRECTV INC: Murphy Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants DirecTV, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06465-AG-VBK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56459, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2020, Plaintiff John Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56364. In the class action lawsuit, Lead Plaintiffs John Murphy, Greg Masters and Roberta Weiss had claimed that both Best Buy and DirecTV failed to make it clear that Best Buy leases, rather than sells, DirecTV equipment. They also alleged that those leases are unfair and come with exorbitant fees.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN MURPHY, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: 212-594-5300 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com Defendants-Appellants DIRECTV, INC.; DIRECTV MERCHANDISING, INC.; DIRECTV ENTERPRISES LLC; DIRECTV HOLDINGS, LLC; DIRECTV OPERATIONS LLC; and THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC., are represented by: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-680-8400 E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon et al. Balk at Unfair Charges of Passes ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARD LEON, MELISSA MARLENE SANABIRA RODRIGUEZ AND RAMON SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ TORRES, AND MATTHEW PAUL SCHWERI AND DURIA R. RODRIGUEZ SCHWERI, as individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DISNEY DESTINATIONS, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01227-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2020) is an action for damages for breach of contract and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq. ("EFTA"), arising from the sale of an annual pass to the Defendant's theme parks. Defendant offers consumers who wish to purchase annual passes to any of its theme parks an option to pay for the passes by providing a credit card, debit card, or bank account information. Defendant represented to the public and the Plaintiffs that the purchase of annual passes would provide passholders broad and guaranteed access to Defendant's parks to use as they chose with only specified restrictions such as pre-disclosed blackout dates. Defendant automatically debits each installment from the consumer's credit card, debit card, or bank account on a monthly basis if a passholder elects to pay for all or part of his or her annual pass in monthly installments. In April 2020, Defendant closed its parks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to closing its parks, Defendant suspended the monthly auto-payments until the parks could reopen. According to the complaint, upon determining that parks would reopen in July 2020, Defendant began the process of starting the auto-payments described above. However, in approximately the first few days of July annual passholders were shockingly and suddenly charged for several months' worth of payments all at once. The amounts charged to annual passholders far exceeded any authority given to Defendant to take an auto-payment. This caused harm to annual passholders who were wrongly deprived of their assets and was a direct breach of the contract between Defendant and annual passholders. Disney Destinations, LLC operates theme parks around the world, including in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine E. Yanes, Esq. Gus M. Centrone, Esq. KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 3396 Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 229-1118 Facsimile: (813) 221-6750 E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com gcentrone@kmf-law.com - and - Brian L. Shrader, Esq. SHRADER LAW, PLLC 612 W. Bay Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 360-1529 Facsimile: (813) 336-0832 E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com - and - Christie D. Arkovich, Esq. CHRISTIE D. ARKOVICH, P.A. 1520 W Cleveland St. Tampa, FL 33606-1807 Telephone: (813) 258-2808 Facsimile: (813) 258-5911 E-mail: christie@christiearkovich.com DOW CHEMICAL: Court Denies Jurisdictional Discovery in Guidry ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has denied a request to compel jurisdictional discovery in the case captioned SHEILA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ET AL. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "F". Civil Action No. 19-12233. (E.D. La.). The case is a toxic chemical class action lawsuit removed to the Louisiana Eastern District Court for a second time in 10 years in August 2019. On Sept. 19, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to remand and ordered jurisdictional discovery directed to determining class size in the case removed predicated on the Court's Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. When the plaintiffs requested a stay of the Court's 9/19/19 Order pending their request for permission to appeal, on October 23, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the request: the motion was granted as to the plaintiffs' obligation to affirmatively conduct a sworn claims process within 90 days and denied insofar as the plaintiffs were ordered to provide defendants any information in their possession bearing on class size and amount-in-controversy. The Fifth Circuit ultimately denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. Ostensibly in an attempt to comply with the Court's orders, on November 5, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel wrote to defendants' counsel to advise that "it has 2,774 clients who have sought our representation with regard to complaints of deleterious effects from the release at issue. We have internal paperwork and work product pertaining to those individuals, which we presume is privileged, but which would not shed any light on other potential class members." Counsel for defendants replied to plaintiffs' counsel on November 8, 2019 that "this does not satisfy [the district court's] order." Counsel for defendants then identified specific categories of information it seeks from plaintiffs to inform the class size question, including notices published or mailed to potential class members, efforts to contact class members, proof of claim forms, identification of individuals seeking representation, medical records of any potential class member. Counsel for defendants requested a privilege log insofar as the plaintiffs invoke attorney-client privilege over any otherwise responsive material. Finally, counsel for defendants sought input regarding a proposed motion to approve public notice or proof of claim process it intended to file. Counsel participated in a Rule 37 conference but have failed to reach an agreement. The parties now dispute the scope of jurisdictional discovery and sworn claims process. Before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendants' motion to approve public notice of proof of claim form process, method of dissemination and proof of claim form; (2) Defendants' motion to compel production of information ordered by the Court; and (3) Plaintiffs' motion to compel jurisdictional discovery responses from Defendants. The Court notes that the contested motions offer no actual disputes for it to resolve at this time. The plaintiffs have disclosed that some 2,774 clients have signed up to be members of the class. The plaintiffs also concede that the Court instructed them to conduct jurisdictional discovery and a sworn claims process. The Plaintiffs characterize the Defendants' motion to compel as harassment and premature. However, even the Defendants concede that disclosure of the information they seek by these motions may be rendered moot by the outcome of a claim form process already underway. Accordingly, the Court orders that: (1) Defendants' motion to approve public notice of proof of claim form process, method of dissemination, and proof of claim form is DENIED; (2) Defendants' motion to compel production of information ordered by the Court on October 23, 2019 is DENIED without prejudice as premature; (3) Plaintiffs' motion to compel jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/vgaxyrp from Leagle.com. Sheila Guidry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Bartholomew Kelly, III , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, 909 Poydras St Ste 1625 New Orleans, LA, 70112-4067, Benjamin W. Gulick , Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, 300 Lafayette Street, Suite 101, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Catherine Hilton - chilton@ronaustinlaw.com - Ron Austin Law, LLC, Gregory Pius DiLeo, Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, 300 Lafayette Street, Suite 101, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Jeffrey P. Berniard , Berniard Law LLC, 1140 St Charles Ave New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Madro Bandaries , Madro Bandaries, PLC, 938 Lafayette St Ste 407, New Orleans, LA 70113, Roderick Alvendia , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, 909 Poydras St Ste 1625, New Orleans, LA, 70112-4067 & Ron Anthony Austin , Ron Austin Law, LLC,400 Manhattan Blvd, Harvey, LA, 70058-4442 Ramona Alexander & Vanessa Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by John Bartholomew Kelly, III , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, Benjamin W. Gulick , Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Gregory Pius DiLeo , Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey P. Berniard , Berniard Law LLC, Madro Bandaries , Madro Bandaries, PLC, Roderick Alvendia , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC & Ron Anthony Austin , Ron Austin Law, LLC. Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Colin Patrick O’Rourke, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Patrick Hayes Hunt, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Phillip E. Foco, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC 4210 Bluebonnet Blvd, Baton Rouge, LA, 70809-9630 Department of Environmental Quality State of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Phayer , Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Gregory C. Fahrenholt , Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., 5213 Airline Drive, Metairie, LA 70001 Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Neil Charles Abramson -blamy@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Mark Charles Dodart - mark.dodart@phelps.com - Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Nora Bolling Bilbro - nbilbro@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. EBTH.COM LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- EBTH.Com LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EBTH.Com LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05201 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). EBTH.Com LLC is a uniquely curated, carefully authenticated and ever-changing assortment of uncommon art, jewelry, fashion accessories, collectibles, antiques & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com EMERALD HOLDING: Facing Steamfitters Suit Over Rights Offering -------------------------------------------------------------- Emerald Holding, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 2, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emerald Holding, Inc. and its directors under the caption Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS. The complaint alleges that the disclosures made in Emerald's Form S-3 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on June 19, 2020 regarding the contemplated rights offering (the "rights offering") described therein omit certain material information. The action seeks, among other forms of relief, an injunction against the rights offering. The plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited proceedings. Solely to minimize the burden, expense, distraction, and risk associated with such litigation, Emerald wishes to disclose certain additional information related to the background of certain transactions relating to the Company's previously disclosed sale of its 7% Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock, including pursuant to the rights offering. Emerald does not believe that the disclosure of this additional information is required under applicable laws or that such information is material. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/32lIqOE. Emerald Holding, Inc. organizes business to business trade shows. The Company operates live events, as well as offers other marketing services, including digital media and print publications. Emerald Expositions Events serves sports, technology, jewelry, construction, and other sectors in the United States. The company is based in San Juan Capistrano, California. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is styled as Matatiaou Ergas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-05202 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting services. The Company offers solutions, including primary, secondary, and warehouse collection, as well as client liaison services such as reports on status, cancellation, and payment remittance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Shingler FDCPA Suit in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company. The case is captioned as Johnny Shingler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, doing business as ERC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02492-JMC (D.S.C., June 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Michelle Childs. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. ERC is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chauntel Demetrius Bland, Esq. CHAUNTEL BLAND 463 Regency Park Drive Columbia, SC 29210 Telephone: (803) 319-6262 E-mail: chauntel.bland@yahoo.com EPIC GAMES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Krohm Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Eric Krohm filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit styled Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00173-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the case without prejudice. Defendant Epic Games is the developer of Fortnite, a popular videogame with millions of players in the United States and around the world. The Plaintiff, like other Fortnite players, was required to create an account in order to play, which entailed providing personally identifiable information ("PII"). The Defendant allegedly promised to maintain appropriate technical safeguards of player data. Around November 2018, a cybersecurity firm alerted the Defendant to a vulnerability in Fortnite's system which allowed cyber-criminals and unauthorized parties to access and extract PII, payment information, and other sensitive data associated with Fortnite players' accounts. Fortnite was allegedly the target of a data hack in the summer of 2018, which affected millions of players' accounts. The Defendant allegedly failed to take measures to cure the cyber vulnerability and to alert customers that their information may have been compromised. In response to learning about the cyber vulnerability, the Plaintiff has taken time and effort to mitigate the risk of identity theft, including changing passwords and paying for credit monitoring services. He has also allegedly experienced mental anguish and anxiety from the fear of identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of the millions of Fortnite account holders potentially affected by the cyber vulnerability. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence. The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendant removed the case to federal court in Illinois based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Once in federal court, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because of a forum selection clause in the End User License Agreement ("EULA"). The appellate case is captioned as Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No. 19-2442, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and - Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq. Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-893-7002 E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com mmcguire@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com Defendant-Appellee EPIC GAMES, a Maryland Corporation, is represented by: Wes John Camden, Esq. Andrew Robert Shores, Esq. Robert Charles Van Arnam, Esq. WILLIAMS MULLEN P. O. Box 1000 Raleigh, NC 27602-1000 Telephone: 919-981-4000 E-mail: wcamden@williamsmullen.com ashores@williamsmullen.com rvanarnam@williamsmullen.com - and - Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-248-3191 E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com EPIC GAMES: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in Krohm Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Epic Games, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00173-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the case without prejudice. Defendant Epic Games is the developer of Fortnite, a popular videogame with millions of players in the United States and around the world. The Plaintiff, like other Fortnite players, was required to create an account in order to play, which entailed providing personally identifiable information ("PII"). The Defendant allegedly promised to maintain appropriate technical safeguards of player data. Around November 2018, a cybersecurity firm alerted the Defendant to a vulnerability in Fortnite's system which allowed cyber-criminals and unauthorized parties to access and extract PII, payment information, and other sensitive data associated with Fortnite players' accounts. Fortnite was allegedly the target of a data hack in the summer of 2018, which affected millions of players' accounts. The Defendant allegedly failed to take measures to cure the cyber vulnerability and to alert customers that their information may have been compromised. In response to learning about the cyber vulnerability, the Plaintiff has taken time and effort to mitigate the risk of identity theft, including changing passwords and paying for credit monitoring services. He has also allegedly experienced mental anguish and anxiety from the fear of identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of the millions of Fortnite account holders potentially affected by the cyber vulnerability. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence. The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendant removed the case to federal court in Illinois based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Once in federal court, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because of a forum selection clause in the End User License Agreement ("EULA"). The appellate case is captioned as Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No. 19-2463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and - Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq. Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-893-7002 E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com mmcguire@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com Defendant-Appellant EPIC GAMES, a Maryland Corporation, is represented by: Wes John Camden, Esq. Andrew Robert Shores, Esq. Robert Charles Van Arnam, Esq. WILLIAMS MULLEN P. O. Box 1000 Raleigh, NC 27602-1000 Telephone: 919-981-4000 E-mail: wcamden@williamsmullen.com ashores@williamsmullen.com rvanarnam@williamsmullen.com - and - Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-248-3191 E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com FBCS INC: Faces Battiste FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Battiste, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc. and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03341-CDJ (E.D. Pa., June 26, 2020), seeks to recover damages for FBCS's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In their efforts to collect the debt, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff by a letter dated February 3, 2020, according to the complaint. The Letter alleges that the Plaintiff owed $11,560.90, but the Plaintiff contends that he did not owe $11,560.90. He adds that he did not owe any money at all to the entity on whose behalf the Defendants were seeking to collect. FBCS is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: 516 203-7600 Facsimile: 516 706-5055 FLORITE PLUMBING: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Back Wages ------------------------------------------------- CECIL JACKSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORITE PLUMBING AND LEAK DETECTION, LLC, and KENNETH MOON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00153-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 8, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in or around February 2018 to work as a plumber's assistant until Defendant ceased operations. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week throughout his employment. However, Defendants paid him only straight time for all the hours he worked in excess of 40. The complaint asserts that Defendants willingly, deliberately and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated at one and one-half times their usual hourly rate when they worked more than 40 hours per week. Kenneth Moon controls work schedules and conditions of employment and/or making pay decisions. Florite Plumbing and Leak Detection, LLC provides plumbing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainsville, FL 32601 Tel: (352) 244-2069 Fax: (352) 372-3464 Email: mbirk@gainsvilleemploymentlaw.com G-STAR RAW: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Martinez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G-STAR RAW RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALLEN ARCILLA, an individual, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. CGC -20-585044 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay wages for time spent undergoing mandatory bag searches and wages at separation. The Plaintiff also asserts claims against the Defendants for sexual harassment and failure to take reasonable steps necessary to prevent and correct discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest on wages from when those wages case due and were payable, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff began his employment with G-Star as brand ambassador, a.k.a. sales associate, in the Defendant's retail store located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Winer, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. Pataya Ann Surapruik, Esq. WINER, BURRITT & SCOTT, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 433 1000 Facsimile: (510) 433 1001 E-mail: john@wmlawyers.com brent@wmlawyers.com ann@wmlawyers.com GG HOMES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GG HOMES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01298-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful telemarketing practices in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received unsolicited marketing text messages to his cellular telephone number (619) ***-1119 from Defendant's number (858) 707-7601 on or about May 26, 2017, on or about August 3, 2017, and on or about October 18, 2017 without prior express written consent from Plaintiff. Allegedly, Defendant has a practice of sending unsolicited, automated text messages to individuals and real estate professionals to solicit their services as professional homebuyers. However, Defendant's unsolicited and unwanted text messages transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular device have invaded Plaintiff's privacy and distracted and annoyed Plaintiff upon receipt. GG Homes, Inc. offers home buying services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 14410 Via Venezia #1404 San Diego, CA 92129-1666 Tel: (858) 299-5879 Fax: (619) 354-7281 Email: alex@madarlaw.net GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PERSONALS, LLC d/b/a BANGLOCALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-at-00682 (E.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message from Defendant's telephone number (410) 753-6128 on June 9, 2020 which contained a link of a sexually explicit video of a naked woman advertising a discreet hookup service by encouraging the viewer to sign up to meet individuals that want to have sex and by offering a free membership. Plaintiff asserts that he never provided Defendant his express written consent to receive such text message which was allegedly transmitted through an automatic telephone dialing system. Moreover, the unsolicited text message sent by Defendant caused Plaintiff actual harm, inconvenienced, and disruption to his daily life. Global Personals, LLC d/b/a Banglocals, LLC provides online entertainment solutions offering a network of traditional, casual and niche dating sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Emails: ak@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com GRAND LUX: Court Dismisses ADA NYCHRL Suit ------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Defendants' issued an Opinion and Order granting Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRAND LUX CAFE LLC, Defendant. No. 19-cv-10345 (MKV). (S.D.N.Y.) Before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez brings this putative class action against Defendant Grand Lux Café LLC alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Dominguez is blind. He alleges that Grand Lux Café discriminates against the blind because it does not sell braille, or otherwise blind-accessible, gift cards. Grand Lux Café moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dominguez has failed to establish standing under the ADA because he does not offer any "non-conclusory factual allegations that demonstrate a plausible intention to return to a Grand Lux Café restaurant but for barriers to access. Instead, the First Amended Complaint merely asserts, in conclusory fashion, that Dominguez intends to immediately purchase at least one store gift card from the Defendant as soon as the Defendant sells store gift cards that are accessible to the blind and utilize it at Defendant's restaurant. And it rehearses, in equally conclusory fashion, the legal bases for finding an intention to return past visits and proximity without providing any supporting factual details. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleges that Dominguez has been a customer at Defendant's stores on prior occasions and that he resides within close proximity to at least one of Defendant's physical locations. Dominguez fails to offer any factual context, for the allegations about his past visits or proximity to Grand Lux Café restaurants. Dominguez fails to offer even that much detail. The First Amended Complaint says nothing about when Dominguez allegedly visited a Grand Lux Café restaurant, or the number of prior occasions on which he was a customer, or how long it has been. Here, by contrast, Dominguez does not even explain what he means when he asserts that he intends to go to Defendant's restaurant. He fails to identify which location or locations of the Grand Lux Café chain he has visited in the past, which location is in close proximity to his home, what he means by close proximity or which location he allegedly wishes to visit in the future. Dominguez thus offers no plausible basis for the inference that he intend[s] to return to the subject location, wherever that may be. Moreover, Dominguez does not explain how the failure of Grand Lux Café to sell braille, or other blind-accessible, gift cards creates a barrier to his return to their physical restaurants. To be sure, the Second Circuit has recognized that deterrence constitutes an injury under the ADA. Instead of alleging a particularized injury from a barrier to accessing a Grand Lux Café restaurant, Dominguez filed a generic complaint about a failure to sell braille gift cards. Indeed, Dominguez has filed dozens of substantially identical complaints in this district against various retail and dining. The motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cowc36 from Leagle.com HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Settlement in Wolf Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the proposed class settlement in the case captioned ANNE WOLF, ROBIN SERGI, ANTHONY FEHRENBACH, and CARLOS ROMERO individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 5:15-cv-01221-TJH-GJSx. (C.D. Cal.). The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons or entities residing in the States of California and Texas who purchased an HP LaserJet Pro P1102w Printer, as well as all persons or entities residing in California who purchased an HP LaserJet Pro 200 Color MFP M276nw printer, between April 1, 2014, and the present. The Court finds the settlement was entered into in good faith, that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of the class action settlement under California and federal law, including the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts and risks taken on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the payment of an incentive award to the Plaintiff Anne Wolf, in the amount of $5,000, and as to the other Named Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,000 each. The Court also approves the payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the sum of $859,456.86 and the reimbursement of litigation expenses in the sum of $81,456.86.11. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/t3udvkg from Leagle.com. Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Robin Sergi, Carlos Romero & Carlos Fehenbach, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd M. Friedman -tfriedman@toddflaw.com - Law Office of Todd M. Friedman PC & Adrian Robert Bacon - abacon@ toddflaw.com - Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC. Hewlett Packard Company, Defendant, represented by Marshall L. Baker - mbaker@akingump.com - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Michael James Stortz - madame@akingump.com - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP. HFM INC: Brigati Suit Removed From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Steven Brigati, Paul DeSoye, Dennis Payne, T. Michael Payne, W. O. Pearce, and Gary Scarafoni, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HFM, Inc. and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 2020CA000825, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, St. Lucie County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce) on June 24, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-14208-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elaine Johnson James, Esq. Noel Robert Boeke, Esq. ELAINE JOHNSON JAMES, P.A. P.O. Box 31512 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 Telephone: (561) 245-1144 Facsimile: (561) 244-9580 E-mail: ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com noel.boeke@hklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles Alvin Wachter, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 4100 P.O. Box 1288 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 227-6337 Facsimile: (813) 229-0134 E-mail: cwachter@hklaw.com - and - Courtney L. Hayden, Esq. Jennifer L. Chunias, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 E-mail: chayden@goodwinlaw.com jchunias@goodwinlaw.com HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Golden et al Sue Over Unlawful Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, MARK GOLDEN and GENEVA GOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00627 (M.D.N.C., July 8, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has an alleged debt, namely homeowners association fees. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs received a written communication from Defendant dated April 22, 2020 concerning the debt. However, the statement in the letter failed to inform Plaintiffs that the debt will be assumed to be valid by Defendant. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to meaningfully convey to Plaintiffs that unless Plaintiffs dispute the validity of the alleged debt, or any portion thereof, within 30 days after receipt of the initial communication, the debt will be assumed valid by Defendant, thereby violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3). Higgins Benjamin PLLC is a law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Brown, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 121 Kendlewick Dr. Cary, NC 27511 Tel: (888) 332-7252 Fax: (866) 317-2674 Email: cbrown@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Rest & Meal Periods, Carlson Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 20-2-10496-5 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., June 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated Washington's Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Rebate Act, and the Industrial Welfare Act by failing to ensure that supervisors and specialists are provided legally compliant rest breaks and meal periods. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other in-store supervisors and specialists employed by Home Depot in Washington state. Chris Carlson worked as an in-store supervisor for the Defendants in their Federal Way, Washington store from April 2004 until September 19, 2019. Home Depot is the nation's largest home improvement retailer, supplying tools, construction products, and other goods and services from big box stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 682-2305 IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Newman Suit Challenges Separation of Match --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant MATCH GROUP, INC. v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, IAC HOLDINGS, INC., BARRY DILLER, JOEY LEVIN, SHARMISTHA DUBEY, AMANDA GINSBERG, ANN MCDANIEL, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY, GLENN SCHIFFMAN, PAMELA S. SEYMON, ALAN G. SPOON, MARK STEIN, and GREGG WINIARSKI, the Defendants, and MATCH GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendants, Case No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Del. Ch., June 24, 2020), arises from the conflicted, unfair separation and reorganization of Match from its controlling stockholder, IAC. The case is a derivative and stockholder Class action complaint against IAC and Diller for breaching their fiduciary duties as the Company's controlling stockholders, and against the Director Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of Match. In August 2019, IAC announced that it was considering separating Match from the remaining businesses of IAC. In response to IAC's announcement, the Match Board formed a fatally conflicted three-person special committee to negotiate the terms of the Separation. According to the complaint, the Separation will segregate Match's businesses from IAC's remaining businesses through a series of transactions that will form two new companies--"New IAC" and "New Match." As a result of the Separation, Match stockholders will become stockholders of New Match, which will hold Match's former businesses and certain IAC financing subsidiaries and be separate from New IAC, which will hold the other businesses of IAC. The Plaintiff contends that the transactions are grossly unfair to Match and its public stockholders. The Plaintiff notes that Match is providing IAC with a $325 million premium in exchange for IAC's high-vote Class B stock by assuming costly IAC Options even though IAC devised the idea for the Separation and will receive a multitude of non-ratable benefits therefrom. Moreover, the payment of the premium to IAC violates Match's Charter and compensates IAC for conversion of its high-vote Match shares into regular common shares even though IAC will retain effective control over New Match following consummation of the Separation. The Plaintiff seeks to recover for the breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of contract, breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract perpetrated by IAC, Diller and the Director Defendants in connection with the Separation. The Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of shares of Match. IAC operates Vimeo, Dotdash and Care.com, among many other companies, and has majority ownership of both (i) Match, which includes Match (TM), Tinder (TM), PlentyOfFish (TM), OkCupid (TM) and Hinge (TM); and (ii) ANGI Homeservices Inc. ("ANGI"), which includes HomeAdvisor (TM), Angie's List (TM) and Handy (TM).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. Jessica Zeldin, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 IDL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces C.B. Mills Suit in New York Supreme Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IDL Communications & Electric, Inc., et al., The case is captioned as C.B. MILLS ELECTRIC, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. IDL COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL., Case No. 652691/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 24, 2020). IDL Communications is an electrical contractor.[BN] IDT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment on Hernandez Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Elane Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SCOTT MACKEY and DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 6756, (N.D. Ill.). Illinois resident Scott Mackey and New Jersey resident Daniel Hernandez filed an action against IDT Energy, a Delaware corporation, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). They seek to represent two nationwide classes comprising of: (1) individuals who received calls on their cell phones that IDT made using an automatic telephone dialing system; and (2) individuals whose phone numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and who received multiple calls from IDT within a one-year period. IDT Energy filed a motion for summary judgment of Hernandez's claims. Hernandez argues that the Court lack personal jurisdiction over IDT with respect to those claims. Plaintiffs allege that Hernandez received telemarketing calls on his cell phone from or on behalf of IDT since March 2018. At the time, Hernandez's number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Plaintiffs allege that IDT's unwanted calls to Hernandez continued at a rate of three to four calls per day over the next several weeks, despite Hernandez's requests that IDT stop calling him. In their response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs state that Hernandez was called on a New Jersey telephone number and that Hernandez was in New Jersey when he received the unwanted calls. Plaintiffs do not claim that Hernandez received any calls in Illinois or on an Illinois phone number. Defendant argues that under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), these facts do not support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over it with respect to Hernandez's claims. Bristol-Myers was a mass tort action in which a group of primarily non-California residents injured outside of California asserted claims in a California state court against a pharmaceutical company not subject to general jurisdiction in California. Reaffirming the well-settled principle that due process requires a "connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue," 137 S. Ct. at 1781, the Court reversed the California Supreme Court's conclusion that the state courts had specific personal jurisdiction over the claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs. Plaintiffs acknowledge that Hernandez's claims do not arise out of any contact IDT had with him in Illinois. In their view, however, the jurisdictional limits the Court imposed in Bristol-Myers apply only to state courts considering claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs who allege out-of-state injuries, and do not restrict federal courts' exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants sued by out-of-state plaintiffs asserting federal claims. Judge Bucklo opines, "Illinois law determines the limits of personal jurisdiction, and the principles of Bristol-Myers apply." Plaintiffs' final argument is that even if personal jurisdiction over IDT is lacking with respect to Hernandez's claims, IDT waived its jurisdictional objection by not raising it sooner. It is true that objections to personal jurisdiction are waivable, but IDT did not waive its objection in this case. Unlike in Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1994), the case on which plaintiffs primarily rely, IDT did not "fail or refuse to press" the defense or create the impression that it had "abandoned" its objection. Indeed, contrary to plaintiff's representation, IDT indicated in its July 10, 2019, motion to compel arbitration and stay discovery that it intended to seek summary judgment based on the defense if the undisputed evidence confirmed - as it ultimately did - that Hernandez's alleged injury occurred outside of Illinois. Under the circumstances of this case, I decline to hold that IDT waived its personal jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it sooner, Judge Bucklo says. For the foregoing reasons, IDT's motion for summary judgment is granted, Judge Bucklo rules. In addition, IDT's motion to compel arbitration and stay Hernandez's claims is denied as moot. To the extent IDT's request in that motion to bifurcate individual and class discovery is not also rendered moot by the dismissal of Hernandez's claims, that motion is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tog8ghx from Leagle.com. Scott Mackey & Daniel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A. Broderick - ted@broderick-law.com - Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew Mccue - mmccue@massattorneys.net - Law Office Of Matthew Mccue, Matthew Mccue , Law Office Of Matthew Mccue, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Strauss - sam@turkestrauss.com - Turke & Strauss LLP, pro hac vice, Alan W. Nicgorski – mke@hansenreynolds.com - Hansen Reynolds LLC, Alex S. Phillips - alexp@turkestrauss.com - Turke & Strauss LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph J. Jacobi - jjacobi@hansenreynolds.com - Hansen Reynolds LLC & Michael C. Lueder , Hansen Reynolds LLC, 301 N Broadway Ste 400 Milwaukee, WI, 53202-2660 IDT Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason C. Cyrulnik , BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue 7th Floor New York, NY, pro hac vice, Motty Shulman , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504, pro hac vice & Bennett W. Lasko - blasko@laskolegal.com - Lasko Legal Services Ltd. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that purchasers of Immunomedics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMU) filed a class action complaint against the company for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016. Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. The company is developing its antibody-drug conjugate IMMU-12. If you suffered a loss as a result of Immunomedics' misconduct, click https://www.robbinsllp.com/immunomedics-inc-jun-20-lin/ According to the complaint, on April 19, 2016, Immunomedics announced that the Company would present updated results for IMMU-132 treatment at The American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO"). However, on June 2, 2016, media outlets reported that ASCO had removed Immunomedics regarding the Company's IMMU-132 breast cancer drug from ASCO's annual meeting. ASCO explained their decision, revealing that Immunomedics misrepresented that the Company's abstract for IMMU-132 contained updated and previously undisclosed results from a mid-stage study, when in fact that data was actually old and previously seen. On this news, Immunomedics' stock fell almost 15% to close at $4.52 per share on June 3, 2016. Finally, on June 1, 2020, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden denied Immunomedics' motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the Company had made false or misleading statements about its ASCO presentation. Her decision paves the way for litigation to proceed. Contact: Leo Kandinov Robbins LLP E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsllp.com Tel: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Web site: http://www.robbinsllp.com/ [GN] INFINITY AUTO: 11th Cir. Affirms Plantation Breach Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PLANTATION OPEN MRI, LLC, a/a/o JORGE HIDALGO, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 19-10414 and 19-11032 (11th Cir.). Plantation Open MRI, LLC, brought this class action against Infinity Auto Insurance Company for breach of contract. Plantation (a medical services provider) alleges that Infinity had underpaid its insureds' personal injury protection benefits. Infinity later moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The contract specified that reimbursement for medical expenses shall be limited to and shall not exceed 80% of the schedule of maximum charges set by Florida law. Yet the complaint alleged that Infinity had to provide 100% coverage of reasonable medical charges. Given the contract's clear language to the contrary, the District Court granted Infinity's motion to dismiss. Plantation moved for post-judgment relief, which the District Court denied. Plantation then appeals. The Appeals Court notes that the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. At the heart of the complaint is a single allegation: Infinity's contract was at least ambiguous about whether the insurer would cover 100% of reasonable medical expenses. Not at all. The contract said that coverage for medical expenses shall be limited to and shall not exceed 80% of the schedule of maximum charges set by Florida law. As Plantation's only support for its full-coverage reading, it points to language in the section entitled Limits of Liability hardly a place one would expect to find an expansion of coverage. And an expansion of coverage is nowhere to be found. Plantation leans heavily on a sentence in the contract explaining that the total limit of benefits is based on the difference between such deductible amount and the total amount of all loss and expense incurred. By Plantation's lights, the sentence means that an insured need only pay a deductible, leaving Infinity to cover the rest of the medical bill. But the contract does not say that Infinity's coverage is the difference between the deductible and total medical expense; it says the coverage is based on that difference. The contract, like the statutory scheme it follows, first applies the deductible to the medical bill and only then requires Infinity to cover 80% of what is leftover. No ambiguity exists: the contract simply does not support Plantation's reading. AFFIRMED. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ardxod from Leagle.com INTEGRITY SERVICE: Conditional Certification in Moyer Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Thomas Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton, granted conditional class certification in the case captioned James Moyer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Integrity Service Group, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:19-cv-198, (S.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs, who are janitors who worked for Defendants, allege Defendants failed to pay them and a class of similarly-situated janitors overtime wages for years. The group of similarly-situated janitors includes all current and former employees of Defendants who have worked as janitors from June 28, 2016 through the present who were not paid time and a half their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 hours. Rather, Defendants allegedly paid the janitors straight time, even for hours worked beyond forty hours in a workweek. Plaintiffs seek an order conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), defined as: Any Janitor currently or formerly working for Integrity Service Group, LLC, Deanna Church, and/or Rex Church, between the time period of June 28, 2016 and the present who was classified as either an exempt employee or a contractor and was not paid time- and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In the instant case, Plaintiffs have brought their unpaid wage claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, seeking conditional certification of and notice to members. The allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiffs' declarations agree that Defendants staff share similar primary job duties and responsibilities and are alleged to be victims of the same policy, decision and practice to deny them overtime pay. While Defendants assert that the named Plaintiffs were supervisors, Plaintiffs allege that they were paid on an hourly basis without overtime compensation. Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join form is accurate and informative. Both the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form advises putative collective members of the pending litigation, describes the legal and factual bases of Plaintiffs' claims, informs collective members of the right to opt in and that participation in the lawsuit is voluntary, and provides instructions on how to opt in. In order to accurately, efficiently, and quickly facilitate the Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Join form, the Court orders Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a list of all putative class members, including their names, positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment. In sum, Judge Rose orders that: - Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification, and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs is GRANTED; and - Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA class is CERTIFIED and Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of FLSA claim is APPROVED. Plaintiffs are ordered to propose a procedure whereby notification of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim will be sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Entry and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wamfmbu from Leagle.com. James Moyer & Karen Moyer, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley Lawrence Gibson, Gibson Law, LLC, Brian Greivenkamp , Gibson Law & Angela Jo Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC, 9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 11A, Cincinnati, OH 45242 Integrity Service Group, LLC, Deanna Church & Rex Church, Defendants, represented by David Michael Duwel , David M. Duwel & Associates, 130 W. 2nd St., Ste. 2101, Dayton, OH 45402-1502 Deanna Church, Integrity Service Group, LLC & Rex Church, Counter Claimants, represented by David Michael Duwel , David M. Duwel & Associates. James Moyer & Karen Moyer, Counter Defendants, represented by Bradley Lawrence Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC, Brian Greivenkamp , Gibson Law & Angela Jo Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC. INTELEX USA: Gonzalez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Intelex USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Intelex USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05218 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). Intelex cloud-based software manages environment, health & safety, quality and suppliers for regulatory compliance, and streamline ISO initiatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue Ste 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Court Compels Arbitration in Fontaine Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay the Proceedings in the case captioned ASHLEY FONTAINE, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a TRADER DUKE'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00133, (D Vt.). Plaintiff Ashley Fontaine commenced the action against Defendant Interstate Management Company, d/b/a Trader Duke's Restaurant & Lounge, alleging three state law claims arising from her employment with Defendant: (1) sexual harassment in violation of 21 V.S.A. Section 495h, (2) discrimination based on sex in violation of 21 V.S.A. Section 495, and (3) retaliation for reporting sexual harassment in violation of 21 V.S.A. Section 495. On September 12, 2019, Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") on the grounds that Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement in which she agreed to arbitrate harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 23, 2019, arguing that the arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. On review, the Court notes that in this case, the Arbitration Agreement is short, conspicuously labeled, and reminds the signatory on every page and in bold font that it is an agreement to arbitrate that affects the signatory's right to bring certain claims in a court or in an administrative proceeding. The operative language is non-technical and unambiguous. The claims Plaintiff seeks to assert in this lawsuit fall squarely within the scope of "any dispute, past, present, or future" between Plaintiff and Defendant or its employees, including "without limitation, . . . claims based upon or related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, . . . and all other federal, state, or local legal claims arising out of or relating to your . . . employment." The Arbitration Agreement must therefore be enforced under both federal and state law. This, however, does not foreclose Plaintiff's claim that it is unconscionable. Because the Arbitration Agreement vests the Arbitrator with the "exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the validity, applicability, enforceability, waiver, or formation" of the Arbitration Agreement, "including, but not limited to[,] any claim that all or any part of [the] Agreement is void or voidable,", it is the Arbitrator and not this court that must consider Plaintiff's unconscionability defense. For the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration for Plaintiff's claims without deciding the merits of Plaintiff's unconscionability challenges. Furthermore, the Court refers all of Plaintiff's claims to arbitration and Defendant requests a stay, the Court grants Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sa6jc4v from .com Ashley Fontaine, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Mabie, Esq. , Corum Mabie Cook Prodan Angell & Secrest, P.L.C., 45 Linden Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301-2966 Interstate Management Company, LLC, doing business as Trader Duke's Restaurant & Lounge, Defendant, represented by Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.- ckaczmarek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Eric D. Jones, Esq. - ejones@langrock.com - Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP & Hilary Detmold, Esq. , Littler Mendelson, P.C., 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 300, Las Vegas, NV 89169, pro hac vice. K&K BORING: Mackey Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Drill Operators ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY MACKEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF vs. PABLO GONZALES, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:20-cv-805 (W.D. Tex., July 10, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and Texas Labor Code Section 61.014. Plaintiff seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff his final paycheck after terminating his employment and failure to pay proper overtime wages under the FLSA within the applicable statutory limitations period. Plaintiff performed work for Defendant as a drill operator. Plaintiff and other Construction Workers who were classified as independent contractors regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Construction Workers classified as independent contractors one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours of work in excess of forty (40) in a single workweek. Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying Plaintiff and other Construction Workers as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to overtime pay. Defendant Pablo Gonzales does business as K&K Boring, a construction services provider with projects throughout Texas, including San Antonio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soares Alleges Incorrect Sick Pay & Incentives ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUKE SOARES, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-5844 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 9, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged illegal employment practices in violations of the California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 246, and 2698, and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt and hourly-paid Loader from on or about April 2018 and was terminated on or about May 4, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that although Defendants paid him and other similarly situated employees sick pay and non-discretionary incentive wages, but it was paid at their base rates of pay rather than the correct, higher regular rates of pay pursuant to Labor Code Section 246. Additionally, Defendants routinely deducted taxes and other withholdings from the wages that it paid Class Members in the form of sick pay. Moreover, Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and to Defendants via certified mail concerning Defendants' violations of the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). However, the LWDA has yet to provide notice as to whether it intends to investigate Defendants' Labor Code violations. KEHE Distributors, Inc. operates distribution centers throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Website: http://www.diversitylaw.com - and – William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 Emails: bill@polarislawgroup.com KELLER UNLIMITED: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Sellers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Keller Unlimited LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Sellers, et al. v. Keller Unlimited LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02758-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ryan C. Sellers is a resident of Charleston County, South Carolina, and worked as a bartender for the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate Two Keys Tavern and Tow Keys Public House in South Carolina. Two Keys Public House and Two Keys Tavern are Restaurants/Sports Bar. The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Sellers, et al. v. Keller Unlimited LLC, et al., Case No. 19-2400, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RYAN C. SELLERS, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, REBECCA FREEMAN, ALEXIS FORD-DOAN, HEATHER STEELE, TANDRA PRUSIA, ASHLEIGH BOSEMAN, MATTHEW ROBINSON, PAIGE RICHARDSON, KRYSTAL GATELY, STEPHEN DANIEL FOWLER, ALISON B. SANDERS and CHRISTOPHER WASHINGTON are represented by: Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW FIRM 1037D Chuck Dawley Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: 800-385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net Defendants-Appellants KELLER UNLIMITED LLC, d/b/a Two Keys Tavern; 57 LIMITED LLC, d/b/a Two Keys Public House; and MARK KELLER, Individually, are represented by: Donald Jay Budman, Esq. SOLOMON, BUDMAN, STRICKER & SCHWARTZ, LLP Parkshore Centre 1 Poston Road Charleston, SC 29407-0000 Telephone: 843-763-1118 KEWAUNEE FABRICATIONS: Faces Hildebrandt Suit Over Unfair Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARKIE HILDENBRANDT and BLAKE HILDENBRANDT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEWAUNEE FABRICATIONS LLC 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54902, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1053 (E.D. Wis., July 11, 2020) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, Wis. Stat. Section 109.01 et seq., Wis. Stat. Section 104.01 et seq., Wis. Stat. Section 103.001 et seq., Wis. Admin. Code Section DWD 274.01 et seq., and Wis. Admin. Code Section DWD 272.001 et seq. ("WWPCL") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. On March 30, 2020, Defendant hired Plaintiff, Markie Hildenbrandt, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working at Defendant's Kewaunee location in the position of Welder/Fabricator. In approximately early April 2020, Defendant hired Plaintiff, Blake Hildenbrandt, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working at Defendant's Kewaunee location in the position of Welder/Fabricator. Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective seek relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendant's practice of failing to properly and lawfully compensate employees for all work performed and/or hours worked at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay each workweek, in violation of the FLSA. Kewaunee Fabrications LLC is an Oshkosh, Wisconsin-headquartered heavy fabrications specialist engaging in fabrication, machining, welding, assembly, and finishing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com KINGOLD JEWELRY: Continues to Defend Chitturi Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Kingold Jewelry, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 6, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, RAJANI CHITTURI v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02886. On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit styled RAJANI CHITTURI v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02886, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020. The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon investors, and knowingly or recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's business operations, financial performance and prospects that were materially false and misleading. The complaint asserted claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claim sought damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. Founded in 2002, Kingold Jewelry, Inc. is a leading producer of 24-karat jewelry in China, and currently supplies large wholesalers, as well as dozens of retailers nationwide. Kingold has distinguished itself as a major brand - both in terms of its world-class designs and superior quality. The company is based in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Knoppe Insurance Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CHARLES A. KNOPPE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT of INSURANCE, and NANCY G. ATKINS, COMMISSIONER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-264-RGJ, (W.D. Ky.). Charles Knoppe commenced the class action complaint against defendants Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, the Department of Insurance (DOI), and the Commissioner in Nelson County Circuit Court. Knoppe is an insured under a long-term disability insurance policy issued by Lincoln to the City of Bardstown for its Kentucky resident employees. The class action complaint alleges breach of contract, bad faith, unfair claims settlement practices under KRS Section 304.12-230, and unfair and deceptive practices under KRS Section 304.12-010. Knoppe alleges that Lincoln calculated improperly, and continues to calculate improperly, the monthly long-term disability benefits payable under the insurance policy to Knoppe and others similarly situated. Lincoln removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) and 1441(a). Knoppe now moves to remand the matter to Nelson Circuit Court. Knoppe argues that the DOI and Commissioner are not fraudulently joined, so no diversity exists, and the amount in controversy is not satisfied. Additionally, the DOI and Commissioner move to dismiss, arguing Knoppe's failure to state a claim against them. The Court notes that under Kentucky law, when administrative remedies exist, they must be exhausted before seeking judicial relief. Kentucky statutes provide a detailed administrative process to seek relief for violating Kentucky insurance statutes and regulations. Knoppe does not argue that he exhausted this remedy and the record does not reflect that Knoppe filed a complaint with the Commissioner or DOI. Instead, Knoppe argues that he did not have to exhaust his administrative remedies. This argument fails because, with limited exception, Kentucky courts defer to the doctrine of exhaustion to promote uniform regulation and consistency, the Court opines. Moreover, Knoppe has not shown that filing a complaint with the DOI and Commissioner would be an exercise in futility, the Court points out. Without an exception, Knoppe must first exhaust his remedies under the insurance code, after which he may seek judicial review. Because Knoppe did not provide the DOI with the opportunity to correct its own alleged error, Kentucky state courts would lack jurisdiction over his claims, regardless of their merit. As a result, Knoppe's claims do not present a colorable cause of action relief against the DOI and Commissioner. Thus, the DOI and Commissioner are improperly joined and disregarded for diversity jurisdiction. Knoppe's motion to remand is denied, the thus rules. In addition, because Knoppe has not exhausted his administrative remedies against the DOI and Commissioner, his claims against the DOI and Commissioner will be dismissed without prejudice and the DOI's and Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss is granted, the Court holds. As to the amount-in-controversy, the Court finds that Lincoln demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is met, even without a clear showing for damages for mental anguish. Even if Lincoln had not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Knoppe's individual claim meets the threshold, the amount-in-controversy is satisfied under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Court adds. The purported class is limited to Kentucky residents. Lincoln provides sufficient evidence the class is estimated at 153 people seeking $4,333,415 in past benefits, plus mental anguish damages, and punitive damages. The compensatory damages alone would total around $6.5 million, without having to determine an appropriate multiplier for punitive damages to meet the required threshold amount. The amount-incontroversy would thus also be satisfied because the putative class could exceed the $5 million dollar threshold. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r8xe4cd from Leagle.com Charles A. Knoppe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Grabhorn , Grabhorn Law Office, PLLC & Michael D. Grabhorn , Grabhorn Law Office, PLLC, 2525 Nelson Miller Pkwy, Ste 107, Louisville, KY 40223 Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edmund S. Sauer - tmyers@bradley.com - Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP. LOUS|ANA: Settlement in Creppel v. La. Health Dept. Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has granted final approval of the proposed class settlement in the case captioned DONNELL CREPPEL, ET AL., v. REBEKAH GEE, ET AL, Civil Action No. 19-00324-BAJ-RLB, (M.D. La.). On review, the Court found the terms of the Settlement fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court orders that the Settlement Agreement be effective, binding and enforced according to its terms and conditions. The Court found that for purposes of the settlement the requirements for certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 are satisfied. The Class is defined as: All current and future Medicaid recipients under the age of twenty-one (21) in Louisiana who are certified in the Children's Choice Waiver, the New Opportunities Waiver, the Supports Waiver, or the Residential Options Waiver who are also prior authorized to receive extended home health services or intermittent nursing services which do not require prior authorization but are not receiving some or all of the hours of extended home health services or intermittent nursing services as authorized by the Defendants. Based on the settlement agreement, the Court dismisses the Complaint and Action against the Defendants with prejudice. Class Counsel is awarded $94,500 in attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2020 Final Approval Order is available at https://is.gd/3xrV3j from PacerMonitor.com. A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx4rtsh4 from Leagle.com. Donnell Creppel, a minor child by and through his mother & Sarah Washington, a minor child by and through his mother, Plaintiffs, represented by Amitai Heller , Advocacy Center, 8325 Oak Street New Orleans, LA 70118, Elizabeth Edwards , National Health Law Program, pro hac vice, 1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Jane Perkins , National Health Law Program, 1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, pro hac vice, Martha Jane Perkins , National Health Law Program, 1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia & Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy Center, 8325 Oak Street, New Orleans, LA 70118 Jessica Michot, a minor child by and through his mother & Kodi Wilson, a minor child by and through his mother, Plaintiffs, represented by Amitai Heller , Advocacy Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program, pro hac vice, Martha Jane Perkins , National Health Law Program & Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy Center. Rebekah Gee, in her official capacity as Secretary of Louisiana Department of Health & Louisiana Department of Health, Defendants, represented by Kimberly Lacour Sullivan, Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals, Rebecca Claire Clement , Department of Health and Hospitals & Ryan Jude Romero , Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. MASSACHUSETTS: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Howell's Early Release ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order affirming the Trial Court's Order denying the Defendant's Motion for Early Release in the case captioned COMMONWEALTH v. BRIAN HOWELL, Case No. 20-P-582 (Mass. App.). The Defendant currently is serving a sentence at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley for various convictions. According to him, that sentence is due to expire in mid-August of this year. Pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), the Defendant filed what he styled a "motion for release from unlawful restraint." The motion sought the Defendant's early release from his sentence because of the risks posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic while he is incarcerated. According to his motion and accompanying papers, he is at particular risk based on his suffering from chronic respiratory ailments. Before the Appeals Court is the Defendant's expedited appeal from the order denying motion for early release. The Appeals Court affirms the denial. The Supreme Judicial Court has made it clear that judges have limited authority to release inmates serving custodial sentences due to the threats posed by COVID-19, citing Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 484 Mass. 431, 450 (2020). A motion seeking such relief properly lies only where "a defendant (1) has moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 29, [as appearing in 474 Mass. 1503 (2016),] within sixty days after imposition of sentence or the issuance of a decision on all pending appeals, to revise or revoke his or her sentence, (2) has appealed the conviction or sentence and the appeal remains pending, or (3) has moved for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30." None of those circumstances apply here. Instead, the Defendant is arguing that relief is necessary and appropriate because his continued detention under the present circumstances amounts to a violation of the Federal and State Constitutions (such as the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution). He correctly points out that, were an inmate to prove that the conditions of an inmate's confinement amounted to a constitutional violation, a judge presumably could remedy that violation. The question remains, however, what the proper vehicle would be to assert such a claim. The Defendant contends that, in a trio of recent cases involving juvenile sentences, the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized motions brought pursuant to rule 30(a) as a proper vehicle to challenge sentences as cruel and unusual. However, in each of those cases, it was the sentence itself that was being challenged as unconstitutional. In the case before Appeals Court, the Defendant is not challenging his sentence. Rather, he is making a claim that the fact-specific conditions of his confinement on a valid sentence render that confinement unconstitutional. As the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized, the proper vehicle for such a claim is an original action of the sort raised in Foster v. Commissioner of Correction (No. 1), 484 Mass. 698 (2020) (class action brought on behalf of vulnerable prisoners and confined persons facing heightened risks from COVID-19 pandemic). In sum, the Defendant has not shown that the judge abused his discretion in denying his rule 30(a) motion, which was not a proper vehicle for asserting his claims. Order denying motion for relief from unlawful restraint affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72cmffn from Leagle.com MCKESSON CORP: Andrasko Files PI Suit in Ohio --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson Corporation. The case is styled as Tiffany Andrasko, Malia Leitch and Allison Parish, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby M.K., Plaintiffs v. McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc n/k/a Actavis, Inc, Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., DEPOMED, Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt PLC, SpecGX LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Noramco, Inc., Indivior, Inc., CVS Health Corporation, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Eastern Co., Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Inc f/k/a Walmart Stores, Inc., H.D. Smith, LLC, H.D. Smith Holdings, LLC and H.D. Smith Holding Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-op-45195-DAP (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other filed over Diversity-Personal Injury. McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care management tools.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Cooper Law Firm 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 309-0009 Fax: (504) 309-6989 Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com MDL 2958: Breakwater Asks Panel to Consolidate Suits in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In MDL No. 2958, IN RE: TREASURY FUTURES SPOOFING LITIGATION, Plaintiff Breakwater Trading LLC asks the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order that the related actions pending outside the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as any cases that may be subsequently filed asserting related or similar claims be transferred to the Southern District of New York for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. Four class actions have been filed against units of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and certain unidentified defendants for their manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and options on those contracts (Treasury Futures) that trade on United States-based exchanges. The Plaintiff contends that centralization of the related actions will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. section 1407 by conserving judicial resources, reducing litigation costs, preventing potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating duplicative discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more efficiently. The Plaintiffs in all of the related actions allege that JPMorgan and the John Doe Defendants manipulate Treasury Futures to their advantage, and to the detriment of class members, who traded in Treasury Futures.[BN] Plaintiff Breakwater Trading LLC is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com MESA AIR: Court Appoints Dekalb as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an Order granting Dekalb County Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned David G Lowthorp, Plaintiff, v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated, et al., Defendants. No. CV-20-00648-PHX-DLR. (D. Ariz.) Before the Court is Dekalb's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead counsel. This is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Mesa Air Group, Inc. (Mesa) securities pursuant Mesa's initial public offering registration statement in August of 2018 that seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The PSLRA establishes a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or entity that: (1) "has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The three movants claim to have suffered the following financial losses as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act: 1. Mr. Glover: $46,725 2. Pittsburg: $137,606.66 3. Dekalb: $308,151. No one disputes the accuracy of these figures. Dekalb therefore has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Dekalb also satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements. Dekalb meets the typicality requirement because, like the other purported class members, it claims to have purchased Mesa stock pursuant and/or traceable to the initial public offering at process that were allegedly artificially inflated and sustained damages as a result. Dekalb is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Faruqi) as lead counsel and the DeConcini Firm (DeConcini) as liaison counsel. Dekalb has demonstrated that Faruqi and DeConcini are qualified, experienced, and capable of conducting successful securities litigation. Dekalb's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead counsel is GRANTED. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc64g9a7 from Leagle.com MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss in a consolidated class action suit spearheaded by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois. On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 26, 2018). The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended complaint (the "Securities Class Action Complaint") alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018. Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert & Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March 30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020. MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based in Marietta, Georgia. MISSION PETS: Failure to Prosecute Dismisses Action --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order dismissing the Action in the case captioned SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MISSION PETS, INC., Defendant. No. 20 Civ. 1263 (KPF). (S.D.N.Y.) Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, filed the putative class action complaint in this action, alleging that Defendant, Mission Pets, Inc., failed to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and New York City Human Rights Law. Service was Mission Pets on February 13, 2020, by service upon the Mission Pets' registered agent. On March 2, 2020, the Court scheduled an initial pretrial conference in this action for May 6, 2020. Mission Pets' answer was due on March 5, 2020. However, Mission Pets never filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. On April 30, 2020, the Court reached out to counsel for Plaintiff by email, to see if Plaintiff had any contact with Mission Pets or knew whether Mission Pets would be appearing in the action. The Court never heard back from Plaintiff's counsel. On May 4, 2020, the Court adjourned the initial pretrial conference in this case and notified Plaintiff that if he intended to move for a default judgment he should do so in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules on or before June 5, 2020. Plaintiff did not file any papers on the docket nor did he make any contact with the Court's Chambers. On June 9, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, on or before June 19, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has not done so. Notably, between when the Court issued its order for Plaintiff to show cause, on June 9, 2020, and June 19, 2020, Plaintiff in this action filed at least nine other case in this Court (one of which was assigned to the undersigned), represented by the same counsel, against other defendants alleging similar claims to those he raises in the Complaint in this case. The Court is thus assured that both Plaintiff and his counsel continue to actively litigate during the pandemic. This case is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qbe75o from Leagle.com MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Settlement Class Certifcation ------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order on July 13, 2020: 1. denying, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion for: -- certification of settlement class; -- preliminary approval of class action settlement; -- approval of notice plan; -- appointment of class action settlement administrator; and -- appointment of class counsel. 2. directing the the Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion no later than July 27, 2020. 3. advising the Plaintiffs that the court will not grant the renewed motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, including but not limited to evidentiary support, where appropriate. The Court said, "while the motion sets forth the proposed terms of the settlement, it largely fails to cite to the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the class certification discussion fails to provide sufficient information, particularly with respect to the commonality and predominance factors, to permit the court to certify the class. In a case such as this where plaintiffs seek to certify a class for settlement purposes, the court must pay "undiluted, even heightened, attention" to class certification requirements." The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired by Bayer as part of its crop science division.[CC] MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Noble Seeks Approval to Notify Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Donald Noble, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Mt. Washington Pizzeria, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00489-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of this action to his similarly situated co-workers. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following employees: "all current and former delivery drivers employed at Defendants' LaRosa's Pizza stores between the date three years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice." This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at Defendants' LaRosa's Pizza franchise stores. Donald Noble alleges that Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com MUSICTODAY II LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA --------------------------------------------------- Musictoday II, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Musictoday II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05182 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). Musictoday is an entertainment marketing company located in Crozet, near Charlottesville, Virginia. It was founded and run by Coran Capshaw, the manager of Dave Matthews Band. Musictoday is a pioneer in pre sales of concert tickets, by starting fan clubs for hundreds of artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Seeks Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Libna Guzman On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. National Packaging Services, Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01722-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional class certification and approving court-facilitated notice to: "all hourly NPS employees who, during the time period on or after three years in advance of the Court’s decision granting conditional certification, received shift differential pay, wellness program payments, or an annual bonus from NPS." National Packaging manufactures miscellaneous converted paperboard products. The Company provides sorbents, wipes, towel and tissues, and other related products.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com NEW JERSEY: Fischer Appeals Ruling in Teachers Suit to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit titled Susan Fischer, et al. v. Governor of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-15628, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Laura Waters, writing for the74, reports that Susan G. Fischer teaches Italian in New Jersey public schools. All in all, she calculates that she's involuntarily ceded about $30,000 of hard-earned salary to union dues during her 30-year teaching career. Mandatory payments increase annually; her tab last year was $1,222. While she harbors no resentment toward the $25 a year she pays to her local bargaining unit at Ocean Township Public Schools and the $50 per year she pays to the Monmouth County unit, praising the collegial relationships and professional development opportunities, she's always resented the $200 per year she pays to the National Education Association and, most adamantly, the $800 per year--Ms. Fischer calls it "highway robbery"--that goes to the state union, the New Jersey Education Association. According to the report, this system of involuntary payments to support lobbying that she mostly disagrees with was supposed to end with the Supreme Court's ruling this past June in Janus v. AFSCME, which bars union shops from mandating membership and dues payments. Mandatory union membership, said SCOTUS, is a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. But this system didn't end in New Jersey, because legislators, with a heavy assist from NJEA sycophant Gov. Phil Murphy, preemptively circumvented the Janus ruling through a law called the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act. Now, Fischer and her colleague Jeanette Speck have filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Murphy, NJEA, and the Township of Ocean Education Association. The appellate case is captioned as Susan Fischer, et al. v. Governor of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 19-3914, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SUSAN G. FISCHER and JEANETTE SPECK, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated, are represented by: Michael P. Laffey, Esq. MESSINA LAW FIRM 961 Holmdel Road Holmdel, NJ 07733 Telephone: 732-332-9300 E-mail: mlaffey@messinalawfirm.com - and - William L. Messenger, Esq. Aaron B. Solem, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22151 Telephone: 703-321-8510 Defendant-Appellee GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY is represented by: Jana R. DiCosmo, Esq. Lauren A. Jensen, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF LAW Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625 Telephone: 856-469-1477 Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and OCEAN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION are represented by: Raymond Baldino, Esq. Robert A. Fagella, Esq. Jason E. Sokolowski, Esq. ZAZZALI FAGELLA NOWAK KLEINBAUM & FRIEDMAN 570 Broad Street, Suite 1402 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 609-951-9520 E-mail: rbaldino@zazzali-law.com rfagella@zazzali-law.com jsokolowski@zazzali-law.com NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Bill Jones, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Bill Jones, et al. v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Incorporated, Case No. 2:17-CV-8817, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sought an order conditionally certifying this action as a collective action on behalf of: "all individuals employed by New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Inc. at any point from September 8, 2014, to the present in the Network Development or Pharmacy Operations Departments and held the positions of Ancillary Contracting Specialist, Contracting Specialist, Contracting Specialist â€" Hospitals, Operations Specialist, Pharmacy Part D Specialist, Physician Contracting Specialist, Project Coordinator, Provider Relations Representatives, Regulatory Specialist, Senior Contracting Specialist, and Senior Provider Relations Representative, and worked overtime for which he/she was not compensated." The appellate case is captioned as Bill Jones, et al. v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Incorporated, Case No. 19-31027, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BILL JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRANCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; LAURA ROMERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; MELISSA BREAUX; IVETTE M. PEREZ; GINA AUSTIN; NICOLE CROWDER; and CONNIE HALL are represented by: Dale Edward Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DALE EDWARD WILLIAMS 212 Park Place Covington, LA 70433-0000 Telephone: (985) 898-6368 E-mail: dale@daleslaw.com Defendant-Appellee NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION, INCORPORATED, doing business as Peoples Health Network, is represented by: Elizabeth Anderson Roussel, Esq. ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P. Hancock Whitney Center 701 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: 504-585-0445 E-mail: elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com NEW YORK CITY: S.D.N.Y. Consolidates Azor-El, Inmates COVID Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation and Request for Pro Bono Counsel in the case captioned JEAN AZOR-EL, ANTHONY BROWN, JAMES CARTER, DAKWAN FENNELL, RAMON GOMEZ, ANTONIO GRAHAM, ANTHONY MEDINA, LANCE KELLY v. KISA SMALLS, WARDEN, NORTH INFIRMARY COMMAND, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; CITY OF NEW YORK; and JANE/JOHN DOE, NORTH INFIRMARY COMMAND RESPIRATORY THERAPIST, Case Nos. 20 Civ. 3650 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3979 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3980 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3982 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3983 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3984 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3985 (KPF), and 20 Civ. 3990 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Jean Azor-El, Anthony Medina, James Carter, Dakwan Fennell, Lance Kelly, Ramon Gomez, Antonio Graham, and Anthony Brown jointly signed and filed their pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs filed requests to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted. The Plaintiffs requested counsel at the time of filing the initial Complaint. The Plaintiffs are all detained in the North Infirmary Command (NIC) on Rikers Island and qualify as indigent. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs, all of whom suffer from preexisting medical conditions, bring this complaint in light of the current dangers posed by the COVID-19 virus. They allege that: (i) their health and current confinement conditions put them at an elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19 and dying as a result of their preexisting conditions; and (ii) Defendants are not taking sufficient health and safety measures to protect the Plaintiffs from the COVID-19 virus. The Plaintiffs also claim that they will be denied a fair and meaningful opportunity to present a defense because their state-court criminal cases are being held in abeyance due to COVID-19. They also allege that the Defendants punish detainees, who receive infractions by denying them full commissary purchases before the Defendants have served said detainees with a misbehavior report or held a disciplinary proceeding. Because these actions involve common issues of law and fact as well as the same Defendants, both equity and judicial economy support the consolidation of these cases. The Clerk of Court is, therefore, directed to consolidate these cases. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92lnme5 from Leagle.com NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Maldonado Filed in Gulino Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from a judgment entered on November 26, 2019, in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 19-4251, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Elizabeth Maldonado is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Board Files Seven Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 19-4015; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4016; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4020; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4034; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4035; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4054; and -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-4055. Plaintiffs-Appellees Imedla Belgrave, Maxine Horne, Julio Hilario, Eduardo Mendez, Trina Smith, Yvonne Wilson and Margaret Tapp 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: Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq. James Edward Johnson, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2400 E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov NFL: Attorneys' Award in Concussion Injury Suit Partly Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the district court's attorneys' fee award in the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation. The appellate case is In Re: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. MELVIN ALDRIDGE; PATRISE ALEXANDER; CHARLIE ANDERSON; CHARLES E. ARBUCKLE; CASSANDRA BAILEY, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of JOHNNY BAILEY; ROD BERNSTINE; REATHA BROWN, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of AARON BROWN, JR.; CURTIS CEASAR, JR.; LARRY CENTERS; TREVOR COBB; DARRELL COLBERT; ELBERT CRAWFORD, III; CHRISTOPHER CROOMS; GARY CUTSINGER; JERRY W. DAVIS; TIM DENTON; LELAND C. DOUGLAS, JR.; MICHAEL DUMAS; CORRIS ERVIN; ROBERT EVANS; DOAK FIELD; JAMES FRANCIS; BALDWIN MALCOLM FRANK; DERRICK FRAZIER; MURRAY E. GARRETT; CLYDE P. GLOSSON; ANTHONY GUILLLORY; RODERICK W. HARRIS; WILMER K. HICKS, JR.; PATRICK JACKSON; FULTON JOHNSON; RICHARD JOHNSON; GARY JONES; ERIC KELLY; PATSY LEWIS, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of MARK LEWIS; RYAN McCOY; EMANUEL McNEIL; GERALD McNEIL; JERRY JAMES MOSES; ANTHONY E. NEWSOM; WINSLOW OLIVER; JOHN OWENS; ROBERT POLLARD; DERRICK POPE; JIMMY ROBINSON; GLENELL SANDERS; THOMAS SANDERS; TODD SCOTT; NILO SILVAN; MATTHEW SINCLAIR; DWIGHT A. SCALES; RICHARD A. SILER; FRANKIE SMITH; ERIC J. SWANN; ANTHONY TONEY; HERBERT E. WILLIAMS; JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.; BUTCH WOOLFOLK; KEITH WOODSIDE; MILTON WYNN; JAMES A. YOUNG, SR.; LUBEL VOYLES, LLP; WASHINGTON & ASSOCIATES PLLC; THE CANADY LAW FIRM, Appellants, Case Nos. 18-2012, 18-2225, 18-2249, 18-2253, 18-2281, 18-2332, 18-2416, 18-2417, 18-2418, 18-2419, 18-2422, 18-2650, 18-2651, 18-2661, 18-2724, 19-1385 (3d Cir.). Retired professional football players sued Defendants NFL and NFL Properties, LLC for failing to take reasonable actions to protect players from the chronic risks posed by concussive and sub-concussive head injuries. The District Court appointed Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP to serve as the Co-Lead Class Counsel. Seeger took the lead in managing the case and communicating with the Court. The Court also established an Executive Committee to handle the coordination of the proceedings, and a Steering Committee, to handle all necessary pretrial tasks. In addition, it appointed a time-and-expense auditor to monitor the counsels' fees and expenses. Thereafter, master complaints were filed to supersede the many complaints, and the Defendants moved to dismiss. While the motion was pending, the parties participated in a mediation and reached a settlement. The class counsel then filed a class action complaint and moved for preliminary class certification and approval of the settlement. The Court denied the motion because it had doubts that the capped fund for paying claims would be sufficient. The parties thereafter reached a revised settlement that uncapped the fund for compensating retired players. Several groups filed objections to the revised settlement, including seven former NFL players, known as the Faneca Objectors. They argued, among other things, that the interests of all class members were not adequately represented and that the revised settlement would not compensate all afflicted class members. To address these concerns, the class counsel filed a second motion for preliminary class certification, which was granted, and the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement, conditionally certified the class, approved class-wide notice, and scheduled a final fairness hearing. The Faneca Objectors and others renewed their objections to the settlement, complaining about other purported defects in the settlement. Thereafter, the District Court held a day-long fairness hearing and heard argument from the class counsel, the NFL, and several objectors. It appointed the Faneca Objectors' counsel to present the objectors' arguments. After the hearing, the Court proposed several changes to benefit class members, which the parties adopted, and it thereafter granted the motion for class certification and final approval of the amended settlement. The Appellate Court affirmed. In addition to benefits to the class, the settlement required the Defendants to pay the class counsel reasonable fees and costs up to $112.5 million. On behalf of the counsel, Seeger filed a fee petition seeking the full $112.5 million. After receiving Seeger's recommendation and the objections, the District Court held a hearing. During the hearing, firms challenging Seeger's proposed fee allocation were each given an opportunity to present oral arguments. After considering the arguments and submissions, the Court issued a detailed opinion allocating the attorneys' fees. Various firms appeal the awards and lodge multiple challenges. Among other things, the Appellants claim that the method used to allocate the fees among counsel, including Seeger's recommender role, was improper. Other Appellants, like the Faneca Objectors, object to the specific award that they received. The Third Circuit first considers whether it was proper for the District Court to permit Seeger to make a recommendation to the Court regarding how to allocate the more than $100 million in fees to himself and all the other counsel. The Third Circuit finds that at all times, the District Court understood its role as the ultimate decision-maker and fulfilled its obligation to make an independent assessment of each fee petition. In making allocation decisions, the Court considered whether the fee applicant held an "appointed leadership" role in the case, whether counsel was meaningfully involved throughout the litigation, whether counsel demonstrated the legal acumen necessary to construct and defend the unique settlement, and the "value" counsel provided to the settlement negotiations and the defense of the settlement on appeal. Given the Appellate Court's deference to the District Court's methodology in making its fee awards that the record supports the method used, and that the Court acted independently in its allocation decisions, the Third Circuit concludes that it acted well within its discretion in both its fee calculation methodology and allocation procedure. The Third Circuit next addresses the only area in which the District Court's fee award requires additional attention on remand: the explanation for its award to the Faneca Objectors. Unlike its explicit fact finding and the fulsome explanations it provided for the other fee applicants, the Third Circuit cannot discern the factual basis for the District Court's $350,000 award to the Faneca Objectors. Despite recognizing that the Faneca Objectors are entitled to compensation for the work they performed for the class, the District Court awarded them $350,000, a 0.08 multiplier of their $4.3 million lodestar. The Court gave no explanation for how it came up with this amount. Nor did it explain why it awarded the Faneca Objectors a multiplier less than the full amount of their lodestar or why the Faneca Objectors' work warranted a multiplier far below that awarded to every other counsel. The Court noted only that the Faneca Objectors' $20 million requested fee (nearly five times its $4.3 million lodestar) was "unreasonable" and that $350,000 was sufficient in consideration of the service provided as liaison counsel and the firms' role in providing benefits to the class. Because the Court did not identify the facts that led it to reach these conclusions, the Third Circuit is unable to review it. Therefore, the Third Circuit will remand for the District Court to provide the facts that supported its fee determination. For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and remand in part with respect to the attorneys' fee awarded to the Faneca Objectors. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's April 24, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ApXX0x from Leagle.com. NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Court Dismisses Weaver CSPA Violation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned GREGORY P. WEAVER, individually and On behalf of a class of those persons Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-1339, (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Gregory P. Weaver commenced a class action against North American Power & Gas LLC ("NAPG") on June 10, 2019, alleging violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"), breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings. NAPG filed a motion to dismiss in August 2019, arguing that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO") has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's claims, that Weaver's claims under the CSPA fail as a matter of law, and that Weaver's claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Greenberg issued his Report and Recommendation (R&R) on December 16, 2019, in which he recommends that the District Court deny NAPG's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, grant the motion to dismiss on Weaver's CSPA claim, and deny the motion to dismiss on Weaver's breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealings. Judge Polster finds that PUCO does have exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's case. In so finding, the Court finds guidance in two forms: (1) PUCO's regulatory scheme and (2) existing precedent. PUCO's Regulatory Scheme PUCO's regulatory scheme is ambiguous on the issue of when, if ever, PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints involving Certified Retail Energy Suppliers (CRES) such as NAPG. PUCO certifies and supervises public utilities and Certified Retail Energy Suppliers (CRES). CRESs purchase electricity from a company that produces electricity and resells the electricity to end-use consumers. To supply electricity, a CRES must obtain certification by PUCO regarding the CRES's managerial, technical, and financial capabilities to provide that service and provides financial guarantee sufficient to protect customers and electric distribution utilities from default. The Magistrate Judge concluded that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs only in cases involving acts PUCO regulates. He found that "service" as used in 4928.16(A)(1) means the specific act which is the basis of the complaint. Because Weaver's complaint is based on NAPG's pricing scheme, and NAPG's pricing scheme is not subject to PUCO certification, the Magistrate Judge concluded that PUCO does not have exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's case. NAPG argues that the meaning of service is more expansive. NAPG asserts that service means the type of act in which the actor is engaging. Here, NAPG supplies electricity. CRESs must be certified in order to supply electricity. Because PUCO's act of supplying electricity is subject to certification by PUCO and the underlying pricing dispute is a result of PUCO supplying electricity, NAPG argues that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's case. The Court finds that both interpretations of service are equally plausible. Accordingly, the Court looks to existing precedent for further guidance. Existing Precedent Existing Precedent suggests that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's claims, the Court notes. The Magistrate Judge determined that Ohio courts have not addressed the issue of whether PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs. NAPG argues that both the "Hull" and "Saks" cases, which involve retail natural gas suppliers, show that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's claims. (Hull, 850 N.E.2d at 1191, and Saks, 971 N.E.2d at 500). As NAPG indicates, the jurisdiction statute for retail natural gas suppliers, ORC Sec. 4929.20, parallels the jurisdiction statute at issue here, ORC Sec. 4928.16(A)(1). Thus, both Hull and Saks support that that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs for cases involving pricing disputes, the Court notes. Accordingly, the Court finds that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs for claims that involve CRESs supplying electricity. Here, Weaver's claims are based on the rate that NAPG, a CRES, charges for electricity. The pricing scheme for electricity involves the supply of electricity. Thus, the Court finds that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's claims. In sum, the Court rejects the R&R. Judge Polster thus grants motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/MDjKcL from Leagle.com. Gregory P. Weaver, Individually and on behalf a classof those persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Gibson , Brotschul Potts & Tricia L. Putzy , Brotschul Potts, 30 N LaSalle Street Suite 1402, Chicago, Illinois 60602 North American Power & Gas LLC, Defendant, represented by Greil I. Roberts - groberts@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Gregory D. Brunton - gbrunton@grsm.com - Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani & Peter G. Siachos - psiachos@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon Lawsuit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed with prejudice the case captioned MARIETTA McCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00404. (N.D. Tenn.). The parties gave the Court notice that all matters in the dispute between them have been compromised and settled. And thus, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Both parties are in agreement that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement executed by all parties. Each party to bear its own fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's February 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/eefVjD from PacerMonitor.com. Previously, in a January 2020 Order available at https://tinyurl.com/tgja9l6 from Leagle.com, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The Court found that Plaintiff cannot establish the prerequisites to class certification of typicality and adequacy of representation. Marietta McClendon, Plaintiff, represented by Annika K. Martin , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Avery S. Halfon , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 250 Hudson St Fl 8, New York, NY 10013-1413, J. Bradley Ponder , Montgomery Ponder, LLC, Luke Montgomery , Montgomery Ponder, LLC, 2226 1st Avenue South - Unit 105, Birmingham, Alabama 35233 & Mark P. Chalos , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 250 Hudson St Fl 8, New York, NY 10013-1413. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Maria Q. Campbell - mcampbell@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Raquel L. Bellamy , Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, 511 Union Street, Suite 1600, NASHVILLE, TN, 37219, Sean C. Kirk - skirk@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Shea T. Hasenauer - shasenauer@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC & Stephen J. Zralek - szralek@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC. NORTHERN TRUST: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Lindie L. Banks and Erica LeBlanc filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Lindie Banks, et al. v. Northern Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09141-JFW-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Banks and LeBlanc brought the present action against Defendants Northern Trust Corp. and The Northern Trust Co., asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, accounting, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et seq. The appellate case is captioned as Lindie Banks, et al. v. Northern Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LINDIE L. BANKS and ERICA LEBLANC, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas John Brandi, Esq. Brian J. Malloy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI 354 Pine St., Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-989-1800 E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com Telephone: (415) 989-1800 Facsimile: (415) 989-1801 E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com bjm@brandilaw.com - and - Derek G. Howard, Esq. DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC. 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 432-7192 Facsimile: (415) 524-2419 E-mail: derek@derekhowardlaw.com Defendants-Respondents NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY are represented by: David Singer, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 239-2206 E-mail: dsinger@jenner.com - and - Amanda Amert, Esq. Brienne Letourneau, Esq. Craig C. Martin, Esq. Daniel Weiss, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-222-9350 E-mail: aamert@jenner.com bletourneau@jenner.com cmartin@jenner.com dweiss@jenner.com NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference in Barney Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that a trial court has entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for July 20, 2020, in the putative class action suit initiated by George Barney. On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the "Barney Action"). Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon the aforementioned Seeking Alpha blog in which it was claimed that an investigation of the Company failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers, Plaintiffs purported to verify some of the information alleged in the Seeking Alpha blog. By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants have accordingly filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint denying its material allegations. The Court also entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for July 20, 2020. Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide. Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Commerce, California. OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Bid in Beard Suit Stricken --------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BEARD, et al., v. SCOTT CROW, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Case No. 5:19-cv-00310-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi W. Dishman entered an order on July 13, 2020: 1. striking, without prejudice, to re-filing the motion for class certification; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add allegations regarding the Plaintiffs' future risk of exposure to COVID-19 Accordingly, the only claim now at issue in this lawsuit is Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect the Plaintiffs from violence. The motion requests that the Court certify a class of plaintiffs based on "overcrowding and inadequate staffing not only because of violent conditions but combined with the COVID-19 pandemic." The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is an agency of the state of Oklahoma. DOC is responsible for the administration of the state prison system. It has its headquarters in Oklahoma City, across the street from the headquarters of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.[CC] OKLAHOMA: Walker Dormitory Infested With Toxic Mold, Melton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARAH MELTON v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA; DAVID ANNIS; TRENT BROWN; DAVID SURRATT; KENNETH D. ROWE; and JAMES GALLOGLY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00608-F (W.D. Okla., June 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all individuals similarly situated against the University of Oklahoma and current and former employees of the University arising out of their intentional and egregious failure to remediate a known and dangerous condition in Walker Dormitory. According to the complaint, the Defendants were fully aware of extensive infestation of toxic mold in and around the Plaintiff's Dormitory room. Exposure to this toxic mold directly caused the Plaintiff's serious, and in some cases, life-long injuries. As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, including their knowing decision to conceal information about the presence of toxic mold in the University's dormitories from students and parents--the Plaintiff was formally diagnosed with a litany of serious conditions. The Plaintiff was formerly enrolled as a freshman student at the University in the Fall of 2018. The Defendant University is a public university in the State of Oklahoma. The University's principal campus is in Norman, Oklahoma. The Individuals Defendants are officers of the University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Love, Esq. TITUS, HILLIS, REYNOLDS, LOVE, P.C. 15 East Fifth Street, Suite 3700 Tulsa, OK 74103-4334 Telephone: (918) 587-6800 Facsimile: (918) 587-6822 OLLY SHOES LLC: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Olly Shoes LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olly Shoes LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05216 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020). OLLY Shoes is a children's footwear company that caters to the needs of infants up to age 10.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue Ste 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: HHR Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Emergency Shelter Coalition, Housing is a Human Right Orange County, Darren James and Duane Nichols filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Housing is a Human Right Orange County, et al. v. City of San Clemente, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00388-PA-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The appellate case is captioned as Housing is a Human Right Orange County, et al. v. City of San Clemente, et al., Case No. 19-56474, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Housing is a Human Right Orange County and Duane Nichols filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is titled as Housing is a Human Right Orange County, et al. v. USDC-CASA, Case No. 19-71889, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT ORANGE COUNTY, an unincorporated association; EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION, a non-profit corporation; DUANE NICHOLS; and DARREN JAMES are represented by: Carol A. Sobel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE is represented by: Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq. Robert A. Naeve, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 553-7514 E-mail: rgrabowski@jonesday.com rnaeve@jonesday.com javogt@jonesday.com - and - Jacob Moshe Roth, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202-879-7658 E-mail: yroth@jonesday.com OVATION CREDIT: Tolling of Statue of Limitations in Diggs Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, denied a request to toll the statute of limitations for future opt-in plaintiffs in the case captioned VERNON DIGGS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES, INC., TERRY D. CORDELL, and AMY MYERS, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-367-J-34MCR, (M.D. Fla.). In March 2018, Plaintiff, individually and in a representative capacity, filed the Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). By September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking conditional certification of a collective action and asked the Court to approve his proposed class notice form. On September 28, 2019, the Court granted the Motion to Certify "to the extent [Plaintiff sought] conditional certification of the putative class identified in the Motion [to Certify]." However, given the number of objections to Plaintiff's proposed class notice form, as well as the amount of time that had passed since the parties last conferred on the issues, the Court directed the parties to meaningfully confer to try to resolve Defendants' objections to the proposed class notice form. The parties have since narrowed their disputes but two issues remain for the Court to resolve with regard to the class notice. Additionally, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Toll requesting that the Court toll the statute of limitations for future opt-in plaintiffs as of the filing of the Motion to Certify, arguing that the Court's delay in ruling on the Motion to Certify has prejudiced future opt-in plaintiffs. In support of its request, Plaintiff maintains that without tolling of the statute of limitations, each and every potential Opt-in Plaintiff stands to lose either a significant portion or their entire collectable period due to time that has elapsed since the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify, depending on the ultimate factual determinations in the case, regarding willfulness and depending on the date which notice issues. In their Response, Defendants contend that the amount of time in which the Motion to Certify was pending does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling. Upon consideration, the Court agrees that the Motion to Toll is due to be denied. Actions brought pursuant to the FLSA must be commenced within two years from when the cause of action accrues or, in the case of willful violations, within three years. An FLSA cause of action for unpaid overtime accrues at the end of each pay period in which the employer improperly fails to pay the employee overtime compensation. Here, the Motion to Certify was ripe for almost ten months before the Court issued its ruling. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, however, this length of time is not unusual. Nor has Plaintiff established that the pendency of the Motion to Certify prevented putative opt-in plaintiffs from otherwise timely pursuing their own FLSA claims. Thus, the Court is of the view that equitable tolling is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Court joins numerous district courts within the Eleventh Circuit in holding that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for future opt-in plaintiffs is not warranted in an ordinary FLSA collective action because of the amount of time that passes before the court rules on a motion to certify. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Toll Statute of Limitations. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qpqlezc from Leagle.com. Vernon Diggs, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch - afrisch@forthepeople.com - Morgan & Morgan, PA & Chanelle Ventura - cventura@forthepeople.com - Morgan & Morgan, PA. Ovation Credit Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Terry D. Cordell, Individually & Amy Myers, Individually, Defendants, represented by Eric James Holshouser - eholshouser@rtlaw.com - Rogers Towers, P.A. & Michael J. Lufkin - MLufkin@rtlaw.com - Rogers Towers, P.A. Gerald Thomas Harper, Mediator, pro se. PARAGON INDUSTRIES: $3.75M Settlement in Castro Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated members of the general public and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation d/b/a as BEDROSIANS, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action and collective action settlement. Defendant Paragon is a manufacturer, importer, and distributor of ceramic and porcelain tiles, decorative and glass mosaics, and natural stone. Plaintiff Castro was employed by defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee between September 2016 and June 2017. The Plaintiff originally filed the class and collective action complaint in Fresno County Superior Court on May 14, 2018, alleging various wage-and-hour claims. The Defendant answered on June 22 and July 3, 2018, denying all of the Plaintiff's allegations and maintaining that it has complied with all relevant California and federal laws. Between June 29 and Sept. 6, 2018, the Plaintiff conducted discovery by propounding interrogatories, requesting the production of various documents, and deposing the Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable witness. The parties then entered into private mediation before the Honorable Steven M. Vartabedian (Ret.) on Feb. 18, 2019. With the stipulation of the parties, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in Fresno County Superior Court. That FAC alleges violations of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which the Plaintiff claims are also violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and give rise to penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Defendant then removed the case to the federal court on May 29, 2019. On Oct. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the present motion for conditional certification and preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement. After the hearing on the motion, the Court identified several issues of concern regarding the settlement and directed the parties to submit responsive supplemental briefing, which the Plaintiff did on Dec. 20, 2019. After further reviewing the settlement, the Court requested additional supplemental documentation on April 8, 2020, which the Plaintiff provided on April 15, 2020. For settlement purposes, the parties request certification of the following class of an estimated 1,447 individuals: With respect to all Released Class Claims, all individuals who are current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant in the State of California during the period from May 14, 2014 through the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement. For settlement purposes, the parties request approval of the following collective ("FLSA Collective"): The FLSA Collective will consist of all FLSA Members who cash, deposit, or otherwise negotiate their check for payment of their share of the Net FLSA Settlement Fund and who will be bound by the settlement and resolution of the Released FLSA Claims. FLSA Members are, with respect to all Released FLSA Claims, all individuals who are current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant in the State of California during the Settled Period. Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants will pay a total of $3.75 million, allocated as follows: (1) up to $1,312,500 for attorneys' fees and up to $55,000 for litigation costs; (2) up to $15,000 as an incentive award for the Plaintiff; (3) $75,000 in civil PAGA penalties; (4) an estimated $15,000 for settlement administration costs; and (5) approximately $95,000 in employer payroll taxes and contributions. Assuming these allocations are awarded in full, approximately $2.2 million will be available for distribution to the Class Members who do not submit a timely and valid request for exclusion, and the Participating FLSA Class Members. From the Net Settlement Fund, 80% will be allocated to the Class Settlement, and 20%, to the FLSA Settlement. The Net Class and Net FLSA Settlement Funds will be distributed to their respective members on a pro rata basis based on the number of weeks worked by each member. The Plaintiff estimates that Participating Class Members will receive between $505.74 and $4,045.96 in Non-FLSA Payments, and Participating FLSA-Members will receive between $126.44 and $1,011.49 in FLSA Payments, depending on the number of Workweeks of each member. The entire Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Participating Class and FLSA Class Members with no reversion to the Defendant. Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The groups satisfy the requirements for preliminary certification under Rule 23, the proposed FLSA collective also satisfies the FLSA's less stringent requirement that the members be "similarly situated." Conditional certification of the FLSA collective is therefore appropriate. Judge Drozd also finds that the settlement of the Plaintiff's PAGA claims is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the PAGA's public policy goals. The parties' negotiation constituted genuine, informed, and arm's-length bargaining. The resulting $75,000 civil penalty represents 2% of the $3.75 million Gross Settlement Fund. Having reviewed the proposed $15,000 incentive award, Judge Drozd notes that the amount requested may be disproportionate given the possible disparity with the settlement's average or median award. However, in recognition of the initiative and general well-preparedness demonstrated by the Plaintiff thus far, the Judge will preliminarily approve the incentive award on the condition that the plaintiff demonstrate at the final approval stage that the requested award is commensurate with and does not dwarf the average or median award received by the Class and FLSA Members. The Judge next finds that the notice and the manner of notice proposed by the Plaintiff meet the requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and that the proposed mail delivery is appropriate under the circumstances. The parties have agreed to retain Phoenix Class Action Administrative Solutions to handle notice and claim administration process and request that Phoenix be appointed to serve as the Settlement Administrator. The estimated cost of administering this settlement is $15,000, which will be deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund. The Judge will appoint Phoenix Class Action Administrative Solutions as the Settlement Administrator. The Plaintiff has submitted the following implementation schedule: a. Deadline for Defendant to provide Phoenix with a list of Class and FLSA Members ("Class List") - 15 days after entry of Preliminary Approval Order b. Deadline for Phoenix to send a Notice Packet to each Class and FLSA Member - 10 days after receipt of the Class List c. Deadline to file a Notice of Objection, Request for Exclusion, or a Workweeks - 45 days after the initial mailing of the Notice Packet ("Response Deadline") d. Deadline to submit a Notice of Objection - 15 days after the Response e. Deadline Request for Exclusion, or a Workweeks Dispute for Re-Mailed Notice Packets f. Deadline for Phoenix to send a cure letter to a defective Class Members who submit a defective - Three days after receipt of Request for Exclusion Request for Exclusion g. Deadline for recipients to cash Settlement Checks - 180 days from the date of issuance h. Final Approval Hearing - Approximately six months after the hearing for preliminary approval of the class settlement The Judge finds that the schedule is appropriate and will adopt it. For all of these reasons, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiff's counsel, Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Joanna Ghosh of Lawyers for Justice, PC, are appointed as the class counsel; named Plaintiff Castro as the class representative; and Phoenix Class Action Administrative Solutions as the settlement claims administrator. The proposed notice and claim forms are approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The proposed settlement is approved on a preliminary basis in the manner detailed. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for Nov. 30, 2020 at 3:00 p.m., with the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing. The settlement implementation schedule set forth is adopted. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/vQAzpp from Leagle.com. PHILIPS BRYANT: $975K Settlement in Chang Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANDREW CHANG and RYAN SANTOS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS BRYANT PARK LLC d/b/a BRYANT PARK HOTEL, PHIL COLUMBO and MICHAEL STRAUSS, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-8816 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the parties' proposed class settlement. Previously, on Jan. 9, 2020, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement on behalf of the Rule 23 class and FLSA collective set forth therein, conditionally certifying the settlement class, appointing Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as the Class Counsel, appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, and authorizing notice to all the Class Member. A full-text copy of the Court's January 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rverons from Leagle.com. The Parties entered into a final settlement totaling $975,000. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement on April 30, 2020, as well as a Motion for Service Award. The parties entered an addendum on June 5, 2020. Upon consideration of the record on the case, Judge Swain confirmed as final the Court's certification of the Class for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such certification. Pursuant to 29 Section U.S.C. 216(b), Judge Swain approved the FLSA Settlement and certified the collective class under the FLSA. The Judge confirmed as final the appointment of Plaintiffs Andrew Chang and Ryan Santos as the representatives of the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Judge likewise confirmed as final the appointment of C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as the Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for individuals who opted into the Litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Judge Swain granted the Motion for Final Approval and finally approved the proposed settlement. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel $325,000, which is approximately one-third of the Settlement Fund. The Judge also awarded the Class Counsel reimbursement of their litigation expenses in the amount of $4,903.67. The attorneys' fees and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Judge Swain approved the two service awards for named Plaintiffs Andrew Chang and Ryan Santos each in the amount of $1,000, in recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of the class. The Judge also approved the requested release payment to the named Plaintiff Andrew Chang in the amount of $20,000 in return for his General Released Claims. These amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund, subject to the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. The Judge approved the payment of the Settlement Administrator's fees in the amount of $30,000, which will be paid out of the Settlement Fund, according to the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. The Judge fully and finally dismissed the matter and Litigation in its entirety and with prejudice. Neither party to the Litigation is or will be considered a prevailing party. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Final Approval Order is available at https://is.gd/u7bAjK from Leagle.com. Andrew Chang, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig - anne@leelitigation.com - Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Ryan Santos, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Philips Bryant Park LLC, doing business as Bryant Park Hotel, Phil Columbo & Michael Strauss, Defendants, represented by Arthur J. Robb - ajrobb@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP, Carla Gunther - cbgunther@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP & Robert A. Wiesen -rawiesen@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP. PNS STORES: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG LONGHINI v. PNS STORES INC. d/b/a BIG LOTS, Case No. 0:20-cv-61253-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive relief, declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant owns, operates and oversees a Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Pembroke Pines, Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and at the businesses located within the Commercial Property. He wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has also encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com bvirues@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com PORCELANA CORONA: $4.33MM in Attorneys Fees Awarded in Fessler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amos L. Mazzant granted in part and denied in part Class Counsel Nathan Carpenter and Rebecca Bell-Stanton's Motions for Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees and Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in a class action complaint against Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., et al., over alleged defective toilet tanks. The case is MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ANDREW HOCKER, KEVIN REUSS, MATTHEW CARRERAS, CHARLES AND MICHELLE HANDLY, AARON AND STACEY STONE, and DANIEL AND SHARON SOUSA, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens, AND STEVEN AND JOANNA CONE, MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ANDREW HOCKER, MATTHEW CARRERAS, CHARLES AND MICHELLE HANDLY, AARON AND STACEY STONE, and DANIEL AND SHARON SOUSA, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens, Civil Action Nos. 4:19-cv-00248, 4:17-CV-00001 (E.D. Tex.). The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks. The toilet tanks at issue were manufactured, designed, produced, and distributed by Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as Porcelana Corona. After a mediation conference on Aug. 28, 2018, the parties reached a partial settlement with respect to past and current owners of Vortens tank models #3412 and #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2011, who previously expended funds to repair and replace tanks. And after a mediation conference on Oct. 16, 2018, the parties further resolved claims brought by owners of tank models #3412 and #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011, providing relief to class members that incurred property damage other than to the product itself. However, the parties were originally unable to reach agreement regarding the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. On April 2, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever the distinct and severable subclass of owners of tank models #3412 and #3464 ("2011 Settlement Class") in order to render final judgment on those settled claims while a second motion for class certification on numerous unresolved claims ("Remaining Claims") was pending before the Court. On June 18, 2019, the Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Approval of Service Awards, Award of Attorneys' Fees, and Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses for the newly severed 2011 Settlement Class. Briefing of that motion was completed on July 26, 2019. On Aug. 29, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. It approved the settlement for the 2011 Settlement Class but noted that the determination of the Class Counsel's reasonable fees and costs to be paid by the Defendant would be addressed in a separate order. But then, after the Court took the Class Counsel's fee application for the 2011 Settlement Class under advisement, the parties were able to settle the Remaining Claims. The Class Counsel submitted a second application for attorneys' fees on the basis of the new settlement; however, the Class Counsel expressed concern about the impact a ruling on the first fee application in the 2011 Settlement Class would have on the second fee application. Accordingly, the Court held a telephonic hearing and suggested that the Class Counsel submit a consolidated fee application to address the appropriate award of attorneys' fees for the entire case -- essentially, treating the fee application as if the 2011 Settlement Class had not been severed from the Remaining Claims. No party objected, and the Court denied the Class Counsel's original motion for attorneys' fees as moot. The Class Counsel submitted its consolidated Motion for Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees and Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses on March 9, 2020. The Defendant filed its response on March 19, 2020. On March 20, 2020, the Class Counsel filed a notice purporting to waive its reply; yet the Class Counsel included four annotated cases and a new proposed order along with the "waiver." Recognizing that there was a need to respond to the case law and revised proposed order submitted by the Class Counsel, the Defendant filed its sur-reply on March 27, 2020. The Class Counsel submit that the lodestar is $4,388,405.50 and argue that a multiplier of 2.9 based on the Johnson factors is warranted. By the Court's calculation, it comes out to a request for $12,726,376 in attorneys' fees. The Class Counsel also request $373,476.05 for their litigation expenses. Judge Mazzant first determines the base lodestar by calculating the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate, removing any duplicative or unnecessary hours in the billing submitted by Class Counsel. Then, the Judge analyzes the Johnson factors to determine whether the lodestar should be adjusted upward as Class Counsel suggests, or whether it should be adjusted downward as Defendant suggests. After conducting the analysis described above, the Judge determines that the base lodestar is $4,333,949.50. The Judge calculates the base lodestar by reviewing and accepting the Class Counsel's proposed hourly rates, adjusting the hours submitted by the Class Counsel to account for several unnecessary and duplicative submissions, and then multiplying the two numbers. But that computation does not end the inquiry. After reviewing the Johnson factors, paying particular attention to the results-obtained factor, the Judge finds that neither enhancement nor reduction of the lodestar is appropriate. Further, after reviewing the Class Counsel's submitted litigation expenses and costs for reimbursement, the Judge determines that the Class Counsel is awarded $371,354.98 in litigation expenses and costs that were reasonable and necessary to prosecuting and settling these class actions. For these reasons, Judge Mazzant granted in part and denied in part the Class Counsel's Motions for Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees and Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. The Class Counsel is awarded $4,333,949.50 in attorneys' fees and $371,354.98 in litigation expenses and costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uYyFP3 from Leagle.com. PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2020 for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Richard Logan. In September 2019, a complaint, captioned Richard Logan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (the "Logan Lawsuit"), was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje Administration A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System, and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, individually and on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020, filed a second amended class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in the Logan Lawsuit, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation, cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves customers in North America. The company is based in Midland, Texas. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dowe Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Esther Buckram, Maureen Dowe and Elvie Moore filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order issued on November 22, 2019, granting Prudential's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Dowe, et al. v. Prudential Financial Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-11633, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted Prudential's motion to compel arbitration; (ii) denied LMB's motion to compel arbitration; and (iii) granted LMB's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Dowe, Moore, and Buckram are former employees of Prudential and former clients of the law firm Leeds & Morelli, P.C. or its successors ("LMB"). In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that LMB conspired with Prudential to settle discrimination claims against Prudential for less than their true value, in exchange for side payments from Prudential to LMB. Beginning in 1997, LMB solicited Prudential employees to become clients of the firm and bring employment-discrimination claims against Prudential. Dowe was one such client, and in January 1998, she signed a retainer agreement providing that LMB would represent her in "negotiating a settlement against" Prudential and that LMB would receive one third of the settlement as attorneys' fees. On Feb. 13, 1998, LMB entered into a five-page Dispute Resolution Agreement ("DRA") with Prudential. The DRA provided that Prudential and the employees represented by LMB had agreed to utilize confidential and informal dispute resolution procedures for the resolution of" the employment-discrimination claims. Despite these representations, the Plaintiffs allege that LMB had not shown the DRA to its clients and never did so. Instead, LMB later presented its clients with a signature page for the DRA and instructed them to sign. The Defendants have submitted a signature page executed by Dowe on March 8, 1998. It is entitled Execution and Acknowledgement and contains a declaration under penalty of perjury. Unbeknownst to Dowe or the other employees, LMB and Prudential had also executed a side agreement on Feb. 13, 1998--the same day they entered into the DRA. In a letter to LMB, Prudential agreed that it would pay LMB $1.5 million within one week of LMB's execution of the DRA. Between 1998 and 2000, Prudential paid LMB an additional $6 million in fees. In February 1999, LMB informed Dowe that Prudential had offered $150,000 to settle her claim. LMB recommended that Dowe accept the settlement, and she did so. Dowe signed a settlement agreement on Feb. 6, 1999. That agreement was made between Dowe and Prudential. Prudential therein agreed to pay Dowe $150,000 in exchange for release of her claims. Dowe agreed not to disclose "any information regarding the amount of, terms of, or facts or circumstances underlying" the settlement. The settlement agreement also included an arbitration clause. The appellate case is captioned as Dowe, et al. v. Prudential Financial Inc., et al., Case No. 19-4246, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Maureen Dowe, individually and on behalf of those Class Members similarly situated, Elvie Moore and Esther Buckram are represented by: Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, Esq. 233 Broadway New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 791-5600 E-mail: ALB@bluestonelawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees Leeds, Morelli and Brown PC; Leeds, Morelli and Brown LLP; Lenard Leeds; Steven A. Morelli; Jeffrey K. Brown; Eric Schwimmer; Leeds Brown Law P.C.; Prudential Securities Incorporated; and Leeds and Morelli, PC, are represented by: Janice J. DiGennaro, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP 926 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: 516-357-3000 E-mail: janice.digennaro@rivkin.com Defendant-Appellee Prudential Financial Inc., parent and successor in interest to Prudential Securities Incorporated, is represented by: Vincent Anthony Sama, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212-836-8000 RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2020 for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2020 that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp. The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp. A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019. The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and customary" price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential range of loss and is defending itself against these claims." Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. ROBERT CLARK: Court Remands Action to State Court ------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order remanding the Action to State Court in the case captioned FRANCISCO J. ALDANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT CRAIG CLARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. 20-cv-349-BAS-BGS. (S.D. Cal.) The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why removal was proper, specifically, why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case and why removal was timely. Plaintiffs Francisco J. Aldana and the Law Offices of Francisco Javier Aldana filed a civil action in California state court against Robert Craig Clark and Clark & Treglio for (1) breach of written contract, (2) money had and received, (3) restitution, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) imposition of a constructive trust. The civil action seeks to enforce an alleged fee sharing agreement that arises out of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' representation of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit entitled Arellano, et al. v. Kellermeyer Building Services, Case No. 13-cv-0533-BAS-BGS ("Arellano") that was adjudicated before this Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court in February 2020. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs here are now seeking to enforce the alleged fee agreement to split fees 50/50. Defendants claim the Court has jurisdiction over this fee dispute due to the language of the Settlement Agreement and Court's order. The Settlement Agreement states: the court has jurisdiction over this case and shall retain jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and all Parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Settlement Agreement. Defendants point out that they stipulated to the Court retaining exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Agreement, including the issue of attorney fees.But simply because parties stipulate to something does not confer any burden on the Court, instead, the Court must look to the language of its own order. Indeed, the issue of the division of fees set forth in the Settlement Agreement involves implementation and interpretation of the Agreement. But the Court retained jurisdiction over this action and the Parties for purposes of interpreting and implementing the Settlement Agreement. The Court did not retain jurisdiction over issues between the attorneys in the case, even though those issues relate to the Agreement. The present case does not concern the parties from Arellano or the action itself, nothing about the resolution of the class action depends on the resolution of the fee dispute. The Court finds it did not retain jurisdiction over a fee dispute between counsel. The Court declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over this case and REMANDS this matter to California state court. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9extq6 from Leagle.com RYB EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Zhang Amended Securities Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Queens County issued a Decision/Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned YIQING ZHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. RYB EDUCATION, INC., CHIMIN CAO, YANLAI SHI, PING WEI, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), MORGAN STANELY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, and BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., Defendants. Docket No. 717923/2018, Sequence No. 1. Plaintiffs bring this class action against defendants alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Following an incident in November 2017 involving the mistreatment of students at an RYB facility, the complaint alleges that various statements about teacher training, qualifications, and student safety contained in RYB's Registration Statement and Prospectus related to its initial public offering (IPO) were false and misleading. RYB's argument that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege standing under Section 12(a)(2) is insufficient, according to Judge Joseph Risi. The crux of plaintiffs' amended complaint is that defendants failed to accurately describe and/or omitted significant information regarding RYB's teacher training program, teacher qualifications, and safety and security protocols, which were core aspects of its business, thereby misleading the public. However, the exact type of risks of which plaintiffs complain were disclosed in the Offering Documents themselves. Notably, the Offering Documents address the possibility of teachers not uniformly following RYB's service standards and, in fact, mentions an April 2017 incident involving the mistreatment of a student by an intern and trainee in an RYB facility in violation of RYB's policies and training program. In view of the foregoing, RYB specifically cautioned investors about the relevant risks associated with its service standards, teacher training, and the nature of its business, Judge Risi said. As to plaintiffs' allegation that the Offering Documents failed to disclose the deficiencies in RYB's teacher training program regarding issues of student safety, security, and discipline, the Court finds that no such material misstatements or omissions were made. The Offering Documents, coupled with the RYB training materials, adequately describe the content of RYB's teacher training program and included risk disclosures which describe the limitations of the training program. Section 15 of Securities Act makes control persons, or persons who control defendants liable under Sections 11 and 12. The purpose of this section is to help investors collect damages in cases where the defendant is insolvent or does not have enough money to pay the investor. Since the Court has concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately state claims under Section 11 or 12(a)(2), the third cause of action for violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act is dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the Queens County Supreme Court's July 2, 2020 Decision/Order is available at https://is.gd/CEeu4Y from Leagle.com RYB is a provider of early childhood education with approximately 1,000 facilities in 300 cities. * * * By letter dated August 29, 2019, counsel for Liang Meng, one of the directors of RYB, informed the trial court that plaintiffs attempted to serve Mr. Meng in Hong Kong under the Hague Convention, he accepted service and under the Rules of the Hong Kong High Court, service was effectuated on or about August 10, 2019. The Court further noted that Liang Meng is listed as an individual defendant in the amended complaint dated March 1, 2019, although he is not listed in the caption. As he had notice of the action and is not contesting service and has appeared in the action, under these circumstances and given the absence of prejudice, the Court agreed to treat the fact that Mr. Meng was omitted from the caption as an error, and under CPLR Sec. 2001, permit an amendment to the caption to include his name. Furthermore, by letter e-filed to the Court, Mr. Meng sought to join in fully in RYB's motion to dismiss which was not opposed by any party. Accordingly, the Court permitted Mr. Meng to join in the motion to dismiss. SANDALS RESORTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in McCoy FDUTPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael McCoy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Michael McCoy v. Sandals Resorts International, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-22462-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an Order granting Defendant Unique Vacations, Inc.'s (UVI) Motion to Dismiss this Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action asserting two claims for violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and one claim for unjust enrichment against the Defendants for allegedly charging guests at certain Sandals resorts throughout the Caribbean a local government tax that the Defendants secretly retained. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' marketing structure presents consumers with a single price for a vacation package, which the Defendants represent includes all taxes, while also noting that this price is subject to change at any time due to the imposition of taxes or other government charges. The appellate case is captioned as Michael McCoy v. Sandals Resorts International, et al., Case No. 19-15045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL MCCOY, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Adam Moskowitz, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-536-8220 E-mail: howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com adams@moskowitz-law.com adam@moskowitz-law.com - and - Daniel Wayne Grammes, Esq. Jason Robert Marqulies, Esq. Marc E. Weiner, Esq. Michael A. Winkleman, Esq. LIPCON MARGULIES ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, PA One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-962-6988 E-mail: dgrammes@lipcon.com jmargulies@lipcon.com mweiner@lipcon.com mw@lipcon.com Defendants-Appellees SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD, d.b.a. Sandals, and UNIQUE VACATIONS INC., d.b.a. Unique Vacations, are represented by: Oscar Andres Campos, Esq. Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esq. COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA 9150 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: 954-703-3705 E-mail: jose.campos@csklegal.com thomas.scott@csklegal.com - and - James E. Gillenwater, Esq. Claudia Ojeda, Esq. Mark A. Salky, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-579-0500 E-mail: gillenwaterj@gtlaw.com ojedac@gtlaw.com salkym@gtlaw.com STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Simmons Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Staffing Solutions Southeast, Inc., doing business as Prologistix, Case No. 2020CH04260, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 24, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03716 to the proceeding. The suit demands $75,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Staffing Solutions provides staffing services. The Company offers temporary, managed workforce, temp-to-hire, talent match, direct hire, outsourcing, and seasonal personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Megan Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary A. Smigielski, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 463-3377 Mary.Smigielski@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Michael James Roman, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 550 West Adams, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 463-3472 E-mail: Michael.Roman@lewisbrisbois.com STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUY NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated v. STEPHENS INSTITUTE D/B/A ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020), is brought to seek refunds on behalf of those who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the Academy of Art University. As a result of Defendants' response to COVID-19, the Plaintiff and similarly situated did not receive the benefit and services for which they bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and various fees. On March 11, 2020, Academy of Art University announced that because of COVID-19 they would suspend all in-person classes for the remainder of the Spring Semester 2020 and that all learning would transition to online. As a result of the Defendants' closure, the Defendants have not complied with their obligation to provide in-person educational services along with other experiences, opportunities, and services he and the Class paid for, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff contends that he and Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the tuition and fees they paid to the Defendants for in-person educational services, as well as other marketed collegiate experiences and services that were not provided. Duy Nguyen was an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020 semester. Academy of Art University charged him $11,556.00 in tuition during the Spring 2020 semester. Stephens Institute is a for profit corporation, which does business as Academy of Art University. Academy of Art University is a private university whose principal place of business is located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Shoop, Esq. Thomas S. Alch, Esq. SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 620-9533 E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 969-7810 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com SUNSHINE DADE: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG LONGHINI v. SUNSHINE DADE INVESTMENTS LLC and DADELAND SERVICE STATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-22646-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive relief, declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendants own, operate and oversee a commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots at 8033 S Dixie Hwy., in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and at businesses located within the Commercial Property. The Plaintiff wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has also encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com bvirues@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com TD AMERITRADE: Knowles Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Russell D. Knowles, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order, and judgment issued on November 15, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled Russell Knowles, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00047-RFR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action lawsuit was filed on January 31, 2019. The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Other Breach of Contract. TD Ameritrade is a brokerage firm based in Omaha, Nebraska with major trading centers in Southlake, Texas and St Louis, Missouri. The letters TD are derived from Toronto-Dominion Bank, the largest shareholder. The Company provides services for individuals and institutions that are investing online. The appellate case is captioned as Russell Knowles, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 19-3684, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Russell D. Knowles, individually and as attorney in fact for Bernard A. Knowles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and Bernard A. Knowles, through his attorney-in-fact Russell D. Knowles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ronald B. Cox, Esq. Robert D. Proffitt, Esq. PROFFITT & COX LLP 140 WIldewood Park Drive, Suite A Columbia, SC 29223 Telephone: 803-834-7097 - and - Jason W. Grams, Esq. LAMSON, DUGAN LAW FIRM 10306 Regency Parkway Drive Omaha, NE 68114-3743 Telephone: (402) 397-7300 Facsimile: (402) 397-7824 E-mail: jgrams@ldmlaw.com - and - Alonzo J. Holloway, Esq. Brady R. Thomas, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 2700 Middleburg Drive, Suite 220-D Columbia, SC 29204 Telephone: 803-722-1721 E-mail: aholloway@rpwb.com bthomas@rpwb.com Defendants-Appellees TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Investment Management, L.L.C., are represented by: Victoria H. Buter, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP The Omaha Building 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-0000 Telephone: 402-346-6000 E-mail: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com - and - Theodore Kornobis, Esq. K & L GATES, LLP 1601 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-0000 Telephone: 202-466-6300 E-mail: ted.kornobis@klgates.com - and - Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq. K & L GATES, L.L.P. 1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-0000 Telephone: 202-778-9328 E-mail: stephen.topetzes@klgates.com TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff James Huff filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter entitled JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioner v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TELECHECK INTERNATIONAL INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION, Respondents, Case No. 19-785. The Lower Court Case is styled James Huff v. Telecheck Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-5438, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Huff asked the Honorable Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari from a final judgment of the Sixth Circuit, up to and including December 16, 2019. A petition for writ of certiorari was due on October 17, 2019, which is ninety days from July 19, 2019, when the Sixth Circuit denied Huff's petition for rehearing en banc. The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging that TeleCheck, a check verification company, systematically violated Section 1681g of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by omitting linked information from required disclosures to consumers, the substance of which TeleCheck relies on to make credit determinations about those consumers.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner James Huff, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Martin D. Holmes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6538 E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Dismisses Class Suit on Potato Skins Chips -------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Lustrin, Benjamin Mitchel, and Melissa Pallett-Vasquez of Bilzin Sumberg wrote on JD Supra on the dismissal of the class action against TGI Friday's. On June 8, 2020, Judge Katherine Polk Failla in the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against TGI Friday's ("Friday's") for alleged deceptive advertising. The Plaintiff claimed the labeling of Friday's "Sour Cream & Onion Potato Skins" chips is misleading because it led her to believe the snack contained real potato skins and was thus a healthier option than most chips. According to the Plaintiff, she—and the members of the putative class she sought to represent—would not have purchased the purportedly falsely labeled chips if she had known they did not contain real potato skins. The Court was unconvinced. Judge Polk Failla concluded that a reasonable consumer would understand the obvious differences in nutrition, substance, and taste between a bag of prepackaged snack chips and a hot appetizer prepared in a restaurant. Additionally, the Court pointed to a total lack of evidence that Friday's was involved in the chips' packaging, noting that Friday's had licensed its trademark to Inventure Foods Inc., the manufacturer of the product, and a separately named defendant in the case. Plaintiff's fraud claims against the manufacturer survived. The case represents the latest in a growing trend of dismissals of food and beverage mislabeling complaints. Indeed, federal district court judges across the country are growing increasingly skeptical of class action claims grounded on unreasonable consumer expectations disassociated from actual, concrete harm to consumers. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Peguero Fraud Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Natasha Peguero and Zulema Chapa, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc., a California corporation; and Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05889-DMG-SK (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee. The suit demands $5 million in damages and alleges violation of fraud-related laws. Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com steven.weinmann@capstonelawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com - and - Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq. Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: dmanning@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LEMUS and MINH NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees v. TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING CO., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20NWCV00355 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked and all hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek, pursuant to the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs are hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of the Defendants. Triangle Distributing distributes alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers beers, porters, and other malt beverages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Areen Babajanian, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 U GYM: Faces Manzares Employment Suit in California Super. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U Gym LLC. The case is captioned as Giovanni Manzares, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. U Gym LLC, a Nevada corporation; UFC Gym; and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281182-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 26, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws. U Gym provides fitness facilities. The Company offers gym, spas, saunas, fitness classes, and training services, as well as retails accessories and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: 818-230-8380 Facsimile: 818 230-0308 U.S. OIL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders of the United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Fund") (NYSE: USO). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased USO securities between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of United States Oil Fund, LP, and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of United States Oil Fund, LP, you may, no later than August 18, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of United States Oil Fund, LP. To join case, click https://www.whafh.com/case/united-states-oil-fund-lp-nysearca-uso/ USO is an exchange-traded fund ("ETF") supposedly designed to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. Due to extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, USO's purported investment objective and strategy became unfeasible. According to the complaint, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was not until late April and May 2020 that defendants acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they failed to disclose to investors. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800)575-0735 or (212)545-4774 [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in O'Hanlon ADA Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Rasier CA LLC, Rasier LLC and Uber Technologies Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Paul O'Hanlon, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 2-19-cv-00675, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to remedy ongoing discrimination against persons with mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the on-demand transportation service operated by Uber Technologies, Inc. According to the complaint, Uber's policies and practices are discriminatory and deny individuals, who need wheelchair accessible vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of its service. In the Pittsburgh area, Uber provides no wheelchair accessible vehicles through its transportation service at all. Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs contacted Uber to request that it reasonably modify its policies and practices so that persons who need wheelchair accessible vehicles would have full and equal access to the on-demand transportation service Uber provides in Allegheny County. But Uber failed to make such modifications, thereby leaving the Plaintiffs no choice but to file this lawsuit. The appellate case is captioned as Paul O'Hanlon, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3891, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PAUL O'HANLON, an individual; JONATHAN ROBISON, an individual; GAYLE LEWANDOWSKI, an individual; IRMA ALLEN, an individual; and PITTSBURGHERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSTIT, a project of Thomas Merton Center, Inc., a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Michelle B. Iorio, Esq. Melissa Riess, Esq. Stuart J. Seaborn, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: 510-665-8644 E-mail: miorio@dralegal.org mriess@dralegal.org sseaborn@dralegal.org - and - Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. COHEN & GRIGSBY PC 625 Liberty Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-297-4838 Defendants-Appellants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RASIER LLC, a Delaware Corporation, are represented by: Anne M. Estevez, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-415-3330 E-mail: annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com - and - Patrick A. Harvey, Esq. Stephanie B. Schuster, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-373-6284 E-mail: patrick.harvey@morganlewis.com stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com - and - Christopher K. Ramsey, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-560-3323 E-mail: christopher.ramsey@morganlewis.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Manzini Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nicolas A. Manzini filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Nicolas Manzini v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-24387-PCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. 19-27603-CA-22) was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Oct. 23, 2019. The appellate case is captioned as Nicolas Manzini v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-14774, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant NICOLAS A. MANZINI, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, of West Miami, Florida, appears pro se.[BN] Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by: Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq. Brian Ercole, Esq. Bruno Reategui, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-3447 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com brian.ercole@morganlewis.com bruno.reategui@morganlewis.com ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Hanbser Suit Over Wage Pay Violations -------------------------------------------------------- SHAHARA HANSBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-101599 (Calif. Super., Kern Cty., July 10, 2020) is an action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees of Defendant and/or DOES who: -- worked a shift of at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four, or a major fraction thereof, without receiving a 10-minute net rest break; -- worked qualifying shifts without receiving second meal periods and second and third rest breaks; -- were not provided accurate itemized wage statements; -- were not paid all wages owed twice per month; -- were not paid compensation for all time worked at the straight, overtime, or double time rate; and -- were not paid waiting time penalties, in violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), California Labor Code Section 2698 et. seq. Plaintiff and similar aggrieved employees were and are employed in the State of California by the Defendant and/or DOES as all persons who performed services at Defendant's distribution centers and/or warehouses in the state as hourly, non-exempt workers, pickers, warehouse workers, shipping and receiving coordinators, shipping and receiving clerks, production workers, or similar job designations and titles, and all other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly workers who performed services for Defendant through staffing agencies or other non-Ulta Beauty entities during the relevant time period. Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt capacity. Defendant and/or DOES failed to pay all wages owed to Plaintiff and to other terminated or resigned members of the aggrieved employees, failed to timely pay wages during employment, as well as failed to pay Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees all wages earned twice per month. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC is a California-based company which offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Mara, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nedley Seeks Tuition and Fee Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMMA NEDLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-03109-TJS (E.D. Pa., June 25, 2020), is brought to seek refunds on behalf of all persons, who paid tuition and/or fees to attend the University for an in-person, hands-on education for the Spring 2020 semester, Summer 2020 semester, and any future semester where their course work was moved to online learning. According to the complaint, such persons paid all or part of the tuition for this semester and mandatory fees that include a General Fee, Technology Fee, and Clinical Fee (collectively the Mandatory Fees). Students may have incurred additional fees based on whether they were a freshman or transfer student, or depending upon which program they were enrolled in. Because of the University's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, by mid-March, the University ceased or severely limited any of the services or facilities the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover. The Plaintiff contends that the University has not refunded any amount of the tuition or any portion of the Mandatory Fees, even though it has implemented online distance learning since mid-March 2020. Emma Nedley is a citizen of Pennsylvania. She paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate student. The University of Pennsylvania is a private research, Ivy League university founded in 1740. The University offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as an array of internationally prominent of graduate programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com ncolella@carlsonlynch.com VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine & Kebartas LLC. The case is styled as Mark Ureda, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Valentine & Kebartas LLC and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01018-WED (E.D. Wis., July 7, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Valentine & Kebartas LLC is a collection agency headquartered in Lawrence, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben J Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: bslatky@ademilaw.com - and - Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jfruchter@ademilaw.com - and - Mark A Eldridge, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com - and - John D Blythin, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com VYSTAR CORP: Rotmans Furniture Defends LaChapelle Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that Robert LaChapelle's class action complaint against Rotmans Furniture, a company subsidiary, is underway. On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and 150). Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. Vystar said, "Rotmans is in the process of investigating these claims to determine whether it may be liable to the members of the putative class for unpaid overtime and Sunday pay and, if so, the approximate amount of such amounts." Vystar Corp. creates natural rubber latex. The Company's product is used in an extensive range of products including balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives, foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment, sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as condoms, surgical and exam gloves. WALGREENS BOOTS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in JR Personal Injury Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs J R, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled J R, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00446-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston. The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury. The appellate case is captioned as J R, individually and on behalf of her minor minor children A.R. and H.K.; J H, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; B Y, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J S, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE INC.; WALGREEN CO., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-2404, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants J R, individually and on behalf of her minor minor children A.R. and H.K.; J H, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; B Y, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and J S, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Adair Ford Boroughs, Esq. 4532 Meadowood Road Columbia, SC 29206 Telephone: 843-608-0498 - and - Charles W. Byrd, Esq. Aimee J. Hall, Esq. Michael J. Moore, Esq. C. Neal Pope, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY PC 3392 Peachtree Road NE Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: 404-523-7706 E-mail: chuckbyrd@popemcglamry.com aimeehall@popemcglamry.com michaelmoore@popemcglamry.com nealpope@popemcglamry.com - and - Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY PC 1200 Sixth Avenue Columbus, GA 36901 Telephone: 706-324-0050 E-mail: triptomlinson@popemcglamry.com - and - Edward L. Hardin, Jr., Esq. EDWARD L. HARDIN JR. LAW OFFICE PO Box 530567 Birmingham, AL 35253-7223 Telephone: 205-908-7223 - and - Arthur Raphael Miller, Esq. HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 1545 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138-0000 - and - William Norman Nettles, Esq. Frances Cornelia Trapp, Esq. BILL NETTLES LAW 2008 Lincoln Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: 803-814-2826 E-mail: bill@billnettleslaw.com fran@billnettleslaw.com Defendants-Appellees WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., and WALGREEN CO. are represented by: David Eidson Dukes, Esq. Adam J. Hegler, Esq. Amanda Sally Kitts, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP P. O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: 803-255-9451 E-mail: david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com adam.hegler@nelsonmullins.com amanda.kitts@nelsonmullins.com - and - Kate Heinzelman, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-1401 Telephone: 202 736 8416 E-mail: kheinzelman@sidley.com - and - Scott David Stein, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: 312-853-7520 E-mail: sstein@sidley.com WASHINGTON TRUST: Haines Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HAINES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON TRUST BANK, Case No. 20-2-10459-1 SEA (Wash. Cir., King Cty., June 25, 2020), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from WTB arising from the unfair and unlawful assessment and collection of overdraft fees, which WTB charges when it pays certain items. The Plaintiff contends that through the imposition of these fees, WTB makes millions of dollars. These fees are, by definition, most often assessed on consumers struggling to make ends meet with minimal funds in their accounts, according to the complaint. These practices work to catch account holders in an increasingly devastating cycle of bank fees. Mr. Haines is a natural person, who is a citizen of Washington, and resides in Clayton, Washington. He has a personal checking account with WTB. WTB is one of the largest banks in Washington. WTB is headquartered in Spokane, Washington, and maintains branch locations across the state of Washington. WTB has assets of more than $6 billion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ingram Seeks to Certify Car Owners Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM, STEPHANIE WILSON, and ROBERT REEVES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-10288-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who own a vehicle (or other property within a vehicle) that has been or will be seized by Defendant Wayne County on or after February 5, 2018 and before the date of class certification, whether pursuant to Michigan's Controlled Substances Act, the Public Nuisances chapter of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, or the Omnibus Forfeiture Act. "Seizure" includes Wayne County's impounding of vehicles prior to a judicial determination of forfeiture"; 2. certifying an Innocent Owner Subclass; "all persons who own a vehicle (or other property within a vehicle) that has been or will be seized by Defendant Wayne County on or after February 5, 2018 and before the date of class certification, whether pursuant to Michigan's Controlled Substances Act, the Public Nuisances chapter of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, or the Omnibus Forfeiture Act when the owner was not present at the time of seizure or, although present, not suspected of any wrongdoing"; 3. designating the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 4. appointing their consel as class counsel. If the Court does not certify the class or Innocent Owner Subclass as proposed, the Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Court modify the class definitions or limit certification to those issues it deems appropriate. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting leave to begin class discovery. Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of Michigan. As of 2019, the United States Census estimated its population as 1,749,343 making it the 19th-most populous county in the United States.[CC] The PlaintifFs are represented by: Wesley Hottot, Esq. Kirby Thomas West, Esq. Jaimie Cavanaugh, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 600 University Street, Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 957-1300 E-mail: whottot@ij.org kwest@ij.org jcavanaugh@ij.org - and - Barton Morris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BARTON MORRIS 520 North Main Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 541-2600 E-mail: barton@bartonmorris.com WEBSTER UNIVERSITY: McClanahan Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLINE MCCLANAHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Webster University, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00907 (E.D. Mo., July 10, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals who are students at Webster University who did not receive the in-person educational experience that they paid for during part of the 2020 Spring Semester as a result of Webster effectively closing its campuses and switching to online instruction due to risks associated with the Novel Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19"). According to the complaint, based on Defendant's actions Plaintiff and Class Members received a diminished educational experience and received no or reduced value from student fees that they paid associated with the in-person educational experience. Despite this, Plaintiff and Class Members have not been refunded for any tuition or student fees. Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant's decision to effectively close its campuses and transition to online-only classes because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the effect of this decision was that Plaintiff and Class Members were deprived of the many benefits of the full in-person university experience for which they paid. Defendant's actions as alleged herein constitute a breach of contract, violate the equitable principles of unjust enrichment and money had and received, constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violate the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Section 407.010 et seq, by means of unfair practices. Webster University is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of, and registered in, Missouri. It is a private university, with its home campus in St. Louis County, Missouri, and locations across the United States and in several other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com - and - Mark Goldenberg, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-6230 E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Releases Supersedeas Bond in Petrone -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for District of Nebraska issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Mandate and for Order Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond in the case captioned PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants. Nos. 8:11CV401, 8:12CV307 (D. Neb.) Before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Mandate and for Order Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond. This case is a class action arising out of an eight-week training program operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nebraska law, by failing to compensate trainees adequately for short-term breaks or for time spent resting in their trucks' sleeper-berths. A jury ultimately found in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $779,127 on the short-term break claim and found in favor of Defendants on the sleeper-berth claim. The Court found that Plaintiffs did not have good cause to extend the reporting deadline. The Court of Appeals found that the Court erred in granting Plaintiffs' request to extend the Rule 16(b) disclosure deadline, despite finding that good cause for the extension had not been shown, based on an erroneous application of Rule 37(c)(1). Having found the resolution of this issue dispositive, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to this Court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The only evidence Plaintiffs presented to the jury on damages in this case was expert testimony by Kroon and his new report. Indeed, the reason Judge Strom permitted Plaintiffs to file their untimely report was because it was useful and necessary to the disposition of the case on the merits. If there was other evidence presented to the jury that could have supported the verdict, reliance on Rule 37(c) would have been harmless and the Court of Appeals would not have vacated the judgment. There is clearly more analysis to be done of the evidence in this case than simple arithmetic. The evidence was such that even Plaintiffs' expert made significant errors which rendered his first report likely inadmissible. A jury could not accurately determine damages regarding the pay and time records for 55,000 class members without expert testimony in this case. Plaintiffs could not have proved damages but for the admission of Kroon's untimely expert report. Therefore, the only proceeding consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals is dismissal of this action with prejudice. Defendants' Motion to Enter Judgment on the Mandate and For Order Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86f54wq from Leagle.com YOUNG LIVING: Appeals Order in O'Shaughnessy Suit to 5th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Young Living Essential Oils, L.C., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Julie O'Shaughnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-412 on 2019-04-12, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit accuses the Defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act by operating an illegal pyramid scheme created under the guise of selling essential oils for quasi-medicinal purposes. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, is a Utah limited liability company with its principal offices and headquarters located in Lehi, Utah. The Young Living Foundation is a Utah non-profit corporation, and an affiliated entity created by founder Gary Young. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Young Living. Young Living purports to sell "essential oils" via a complicated multi-level marketing ("MLM") operation. The Plaintiff alleges that the complex and intentionally hard-to-understand multi-layer compensation/participation structure of Young Living is a hallmark of illegal MLM pyramid schemes. The appellate case is captioned as Julie O'Shaughnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, et al., Case No. 19-51169, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Eric Linkin, Esq. DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO, L.L.P. 600 Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 744-9300 E-mail: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com - and - James David Rowe, Esq. DUBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, L.L.P. 303 Colorado Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-8000 E-mail: drowe@dbcllp.com - and - Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Esq. NIX PATTERSON, L.L.P. 3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway Austin, TX 78746-0000 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com Defendants-Appellants YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, L.C,, doing business as Young Living Essential Oils; YOUNG LIVING FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED; MARY YOUNG, Co-conspirator; JARED TURNER, Co-conspirator; and BENJAMIN RILEY, Co-conspirator, are represented by: Thomas M. Melsheimer, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, L.L.P. 2121 N. Pearl Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-453-6401 E-mail: tmelsheimer@winston.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***